Skip to main content

Full text of "The House of Seleucus"

See other formats




J^liulo by Uiruudon 


(From a Bust in tlie Louvre) 








*}rr to tfif JinDta <D ■ 
19 2 

AU rir.fiU rrfey\r i 

s^r "^i^B^^^r^^^r 

/Vr.f. ' . ' 









i^ufalisfjEt to tf)£ Untita ©ffice 

All rights reserved 


Theee is much to discourage an attempt to write a history of 
the Seleucid dynasty. It will be only too apparent how often 
the narrative must halt for deficiency of materials, how the 
picture must he disfigured by blanks just where they are most 
vexatious. I hope, however, that if the reading of this book 
makes these disabilities felt, the question prompted at the 
conclusion will be, not " Why has such an attempt been made ? " 
but " How comes it that such a subject has been neglected so 
long ? " If the book itself fails to make clear how closely the 
subject touches us, as students of the world, as Christians and 
as Englishmen, it would be absurd to think that a preface could 
do so. It is indeed surprising, defective though the materials 
are, that the Seleucid dynasty has not been made as a whole 
the subject of a special study since the Jesuit Frolich wrote 
his Annales compendiarii regum et rerum Syriox in the middle 
of the eighteenth century (1744). In recent times it has only 
been treated in works dealing with the " Hellenistic " epoch 
generally, or in catalogues of the Seleucid coinage, such as Mr. 
Percy Gardner's Coins of the Seleucid Kings of Syria in the 
British Museum (1878) and M. Ernest Babelon's Bois de Syrie, 
d'Arm4nie et de Commagt/ie {Catalogue des monnaies gi^ecques de 
la BihliotMque National), Paris, 1890. Of works dealing with 
the history of the Greek world between the death of Alexander 



and tlie establishment of the Koman Empire an English reader 
has but few at his disposal. When one has named the latter 
part of Thirlwall's History of Greece, some of Professor 
Mahaffy's books, The Story of Alexander's Empire, Greek Life 
and Thought, and the translation of the last volume of A. 
Holm's Crreek History, one has, I think, named all that are of 
account. But Bishop Thirlwall's History, however excellent 
for its day, was written more than fifty years ago, and the 
works of Mr. Mahaffy and A. Holm, full as they are of 
suggestion and of the breath of life, are obliged by their plans 
to be sketchy. In German we have the standard work of 
J. G. Droysen, the Geschichte des Hellenismus, brought up to 
date in the French translation of M. A. Bouch^-Leclercq 
(1883-85). This treats the history of the Seleucids to the 
accession of Antiochus III. We have also in progress 
B. Niese's Geschichte der griechischen und makedo7iischen Staaten, 
the second volume of which (1899) carries the history to the 
end of the reign of Antiochus III, and J. Kaerst's Geschichte 
des hellenistischen Zeitalters, of which vol. i. appeared last 
year (1901); this, however, only covers the life of Alexander. 
Besides these regular histories, there are numerous articles and 
monographs on particular parts of Seleucid history, references 
to some of which will be found in the footnotes of this book 
at the appropriate places. One may only name here, as the 
most important, the articles in Pauly's Beal-Encyclopddie der 
classischen Alter tumsivissenschaft, re-edited by G. Wissowa (in 
progress since 1894). One's obligations to Droysen and 
Niese are, of course, so constant and extensive, that they must 
in the majority of cases be taken for granted ; it is where one's 
own conclusions do not altogether tally on some point that 
they are in many cases referred to — a circumstance which 


may give the work of a younger writer an appearance of 
presumption, which is far from the truth. M. HaussouUier's 
book on the history of Miletus under Seleucid rule, which has 
come out within the last few days, I have not yet been able 
to read. 

I must acknowledge the friendly help given me by Mr. 
D. G. Hogarth, who was good enough to struggle with some 
of my MS. when it was in a desperately amorphous stage, 
and by Mr. G. F. Hill of the British Museum, by whose 
advice I have been guided in choosing the coins for the plates ; 
I owe to Mr. Hill also my knowledge of the superb bust 
which has furnished the frontispieces. I have had the 
advantage of discussing some numismatic questions with Mr. 
G. Macdonald of Glasgow, who will shortly publish im- 
portant work on the Seleucid coinage (in vol. iii. of the 
Catalogue of Greek Coins in the Hunterian Collection). My 
brother. Professor Ashley Bevan, has given me the benefit of 
his special knowledge in an attempt to write the Semitic 
and Persian names on an approximately uniform system. 

It is tiresome that at this date it is still necessary to 
explain one's transcription of Greek. On the principle of not 
giving forms which no one could pronounce in ordinary con- 
versation without pedantry — Seleukos, etc. — I have in proper 
names followed the usage, consecrated by the English literary 
tradition, of writing the Latin form. In the case of words 
not proper names I have transliterated the Greek. Surnames 
of kings and gods are in a sort of intermediate category, and 
here I have been inconsistent. But it is inevitable that 
where two distinct systems are in use joins should appear. 

E. E. B. 

November 1902. 




Hellenism in the East ..... 1 


The Physical Environment . . . .21 


Perdiccas ....... 28 


Events in the East, 321-316 .... 40 


Seleucds conquers the East .... 50 


From Ipsus to the Death of Seleucus . . . 61 


The Problems of Asia Minor .... 74 


Antiochus I (Soter) . . . . .127 




Antiochus II (Theos) 


Selbucus II (Kallinikos) and Seleucus III (Soter) 

















The First Years of Antiochus III (223-216) 




Antiochus III, the Great King {from a bust in the Louvre) Frontispiece 

Plate I . . . . . . To face page 154 

Map or the Area of the Macedonian Conquests 

in Asia . . . . . „ 21 

Maf of the West of the Seleucid Empire . „ 75 



PoLTB. — I cite Polybius according to the arrangement in the edition of 
F. Hultsch (Berlin). 

Joseph. — The sections in citations from Josephiis are those which appear 
in the editions of Niese (Berlin) and of Naber (Teiibner, Leipzig). 

Plin. — The Xaturalis Historia of Pliny the Elder is cited by the sections 
in the edition of D. Detlefsen (Berlin). 

Eu8. — Eusebi Chronicoram Libri Duo, A. Schoene (Berlin). Vol. i. 
contains a Latin version of the Armenian translation of the lost 
work of Eusebius. 

IsiDOR. — The 'Eradixol HapdiKoi of Isidore of Charax (MilUer's GeorjrajM 
Graeci Minores, vol. i. p. 244 f.). 

Malalas, Stncell. — The Chronographia of John Malalas and that of 
George Syncellus are cited by the pages in the Corpus Scriptorum 
Historiae Byzantinae (Bonn). 

F.H.G. — MilUer's Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum (Didot, Paris). 

C.I.G. — Boeckh's Corpus Inscripfiomim Graecarum. 

C.I.Att. — The Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum. 

J.n.S. — Journal of Helleiiic Studies. 

Bull. corr. hell. — Bulletin de correspondance helle'nique. 

Ath. Mitth. — Mittheilungen des kaiserlichen deutschen archaoloyischen 
Instituts zu Athen. 

Droysen. — J. G. Droysen, Histoire de VHellenisme, traduite de I'allemand 
sous la direction de A. Bouche-Leclercq. [I quote from the French 
translation, because it represents this work in its completest form.] 

Niese. — Benedictus Niese, Geschichte der griecliischen und makedonischen 
Staaten seit der Schlacht bei Chiironea. 

ScHURER. — Emil Schlirer, Geschichte des jiidischen VolJcts ini Zeitalter Jesu 
Christi. The pages in vols. ii. and iii. are those of the last edition 
(the third) of 1898,' in vol. i. of tlie edition of 1901. 



Michel. — Charles Michel, Eecueil cU Inscriptions Grecques (Paris, 1900). I 
cite from this collection, wherever possible, as containing the largest 
number of important inscriptions. It gives the number of every 
inscription in other well-known previous collections. The edition of 
Dittenberger's Sylloge, which has appeared subsequently, has itself a 
register which enables any one using it to identify an inscription by 
its number in Michel. 

Babelon. — Ernest Babelon, Les Eois de Syrie, d'Armenie et de Commagene. 

Pauly- Wissojva. — Pauly's Real-Encydopadie der dassischen Altertums- 
ivissenscTiaft, Neue Bearbeitung herausgegeben von Georg Wissowa. 

Sitzungsb. Berl. — Sitzungsherichte der konig. kaiserl. Akademie der TVissen- 
schaften zu Berlin. 




It is a common phrase we hear — " the unchangeable East." 
And yet nothing strikes the thoughtful traveller in the East 
more than the contrast between the present and a much greater 
past whose traces meet him at every turn. He seems to walk 
through an enormous cemetery. Everywhere there are graves 
— graves in the lonely hills, where there are no more living, 
graves not of persons only, but of cities ; or again, there are 
cities not buried, whose relics protrude forlornly above ground 
like deserted bones. Beside the squalid towns, the nomads' 
huts, the neglected fields of to-day are the vestiges of imperial 
splendour, of palaces and temples, theatres and colonnades, the 
feet of innumerable people. So utterly gone and extinct is 
that old world, so alien is the sordid present, that the traveller 
might almost ask himself whether that is not a world out of 
all connexion with this, whether that other race is not severed 
from the men he sees by some effacing deluge. And yet 
there is this very peculiarity in the sensations that a Euro- 
pean traveller must experience at the sight of these things, 
that he becomes aware of a closer kinship between himself 
and some of these fragments of antiquity than exists between 
himself and the living people of the land. The ruins in question 
do not show him the character of some strange and enigmatic 
mind, like those of Egypt or Mexico, but the familiar classical 
forms, to which his eye has grown used in his own country, 
associated in his thought with the civilization from which his 
own is sprung. What do these things here, among people to 


whom the spirit that reared and shaped them is utterly 
unknown ? The European traveller might divine in the 
history which lies behind them something of peculiar interest 
to himself. It is a part of that history which this book sets 
out to illuminate — the work accomplished by the dynasty of 
Seleucus in its stormy transit of the world's stage two thousand 
years ago. 

It is not so much the character of the kings which gives 
the house of Seleucus its peculiar interest. It is the circum- 
stances in which it was placed. The kings were (to all intents 
and purposes) Greek kings ; the sphere of their empire was in 
Asia. They were called to preside over the process by which 
Hellenism penetrated an alien world, coming into contact 
with other traditions, modifying them and being modified. 
Upon them that process depended. Hellenism, it is true, 
contained in itself an expansive force, but the expansion could 
hardly have gone far unless the political power had been in 
congenial hands. As a matter of fact, it languished in 
countries which passed under barbarian rule. It was thus that 
the Seleucid dynasty in maintaining itself was safeguarding 
the progress of Hellenism. The interest with which we follow 
its struggles for aggrandizement and finally for existence does 
not arise from any peculiar nobility in the motives which 
actuate them or any exceptional features in their course, 
but from our knowing what much larger issues are involved. 
At the break - up of the dynasty we see peoples of non- 
Hellenic culture, Persians, Armenians, Arabs, Jews, pressing 
in everywhere to reclaim what Alexander and Seleucus had 
won. They are only checked by Hellenism finding a new 
defender in Eome. The house of Seleucus, however feeble and 
disorganized in its latter days, stood at any rate in the breach 
till Rome was ready to enter on the heritage of Alexander. 

But what does one mean by Hellenism ? 

That characteristic which the Greeks themselves chiefly 
pointed to as distinguishing them from " barbarians " was 
freedom. The barbarians, they said, or at any rate the Asiatics, 
were by nature slaves. It was a proud declaration. It was 
based upon a real fact. But it was not absolutely true. 
Freedom had existed before the Greeks, just as civilization 


had existed before them. But these two had existed only in 
separation. The achievement of the Greeks is thai they brought 
freedom aiid civilization into union. 

"We, like the Greeks, are apt to speak in our loose way of 
the Asiatic or the " Oriental," reiiecting on his servility, his 
patience, his reserve. But in so doing we lose sight of that 
other element in the East which presents in many ways the 
exact opposite of these characteristics. Before men had formed 
those larger groups which are essential to civilization they 
lived in smaller groups or tribes, and after the larger groups 
had been formed the tribal system in mountain and desert 
went on as before. We can still see in the East to-day many 
peoples who have not emerged from this stage. 

The men of these primitive tribes are free. And the 
reason is plain. In proportion to the smallness of the group 
the individual has gxeater influence. Where the whole com- 
munity can meet for discussion, the general sense is articulate 
and compulsive. The chronic wars between clan and clan 
make all the men fighters from their youth up. On the other 
hand civilization is promoted by every widening of intercourse, 
everything which fuses the isolated tribal groups, which resolves 
them in a larger body. The loss of freedom was the price 
which had to be paid for civilization. 

It was in the great alluvial plains, where there are few 
natural barriers and a kind soil made life easy, along the Nile and 
the Euphrates, that men first coalesced in larger combinations, 
exchanging their old turbulent freedom for a life of peace and 
labour under the laws of a common master. The Egyptians 
and Babylonians had already reached the stage of civilization 
and despotism at the first dawn of history. But in the case 
of others a record of the transition remains. The example of 
the great kings who ruled on the Nile and the Euphrates set 
up a mark for the ambition of strong men among the neighbour- 
ing tribes. The military power which resulted from the 
gathering of much people under one hand showed the tribes 
the uses of combination. Lesser kingdoms grew up in other 
lands with courts which copied those of Memphis and Babylon 
on a smaller scale. 

The moment of transition is depicted for us in the case of 


Israel. Here we see the advantages of the tribal and the 
monarchical system deliberately weighed in the assembly of 
the people. On the one hand there is the great gain in 
order and military efficiency promised by a concentration of 
power : " We will have a king over us ; that we also may be 
like all the nations ; and that our king may judge us, and go 
out before us, and fight our battles." On the other hand 
there is the sacrifice entailed upon the people by the com- 
pulsion to maintain a court, the tribute of body-service and 
property, the loss, in fact, of liberty.^ 

By the time that Hellenism had reached its full develop- 
ment the East, as far as the Greeks knew it, was united under 
an Iranian Great King. The Iranian Empire had swallowed 
up the preceding Semitic and Egyptian Empires, and in the 
vast reach of the territory which the Persian king ruled in the 
fifth century before Christ he exceeded any potentate that the 
world had yet seen. He seemed to the Greeks to have 
touched the pinnacle of human greatness. And yet monarchy 
was a comparatively new thing among the Iranians. The 
time when they were still in the tribal stage was within 
memory. Even now the old tribal organization in Iran was 
not done away ; it was simply overshadowed by the pre- 
eminent power attained by the house of Achaemenes, whose 
conquests beyond the limits of Iran had given it the absolute 
disposal of vast populations. Tradition, reproduced for us by 
Herodotus, still spoke of the beginnings of kingship in Iran. 
The main features of that story are probably true : the ambition 
excited in De'ioces the Mede after his people had freed them- 
selves from the yoke of Assyria; the weariness of their intestine 
feuds, which made the Medes acquiesce in common subjection 
to one great man; the strangeness of the innovation when a 
Mede surrounded himself with the pomp and circumstance 
which imitated the court of Nineveh. After the False Smerdis 
was overthrown it was even seriously debated, Herodotus 
assures us,^ by the heads of the Persian clans, whether it 
would not be a good thing to abolish the kingship and choose 
some form of association more consonant with ancestral customs, 

1 1 Sam. 8, 5 f. 
^ Spiegel takes the story to have a historical foundation. 


in which the tribal chiefs or the tribal assemblies should be 
the ruling authority. 

As an alternative, then, to the rude freedom of primitive 
tribes, the world, up to the appearance of Hellenism, seemed 
to present only unprogressive despotism. Some of the nations, 
like the Egyptians and Babylonians, had been subject to kings 
for thousands of years. And during all that time there had 
been no advance. Movement there had been, dynastic revolu- 
tions, foreign conquests, changes of fashion in dress, in art, in 
religion, but no progress. If anything there had been decline. 
Between the king and his subjects the relation was that of 
master and slave. The royal officials were the king's creatures, 
responsible to him, not to the people. He had at his command 
an army which gave him transcendent material power. Upon 
the people he made two main demands, and they on their part 
expected two main things from him. He took firstly their 
persons, when he chose, for his service, and secondly as much 
of their property as he thought good. And what they asked 
of him in return was firstly external peace, since he alone by 
his army could repel the foreign invader or the wild tribes of 
hill and desert, and secondly internal peace, which he secured 
by being, himself or through his deputies, the judge of their 

It was under these circumstances that the character we 
now describe as " Oriental " was developed. To the husbandman 
or merchant it never occurred that the work of government 
was any concern of his ; he was merely a unit in a great 
aggregate, whose sole bond of union was its subjection to one 
external authority ; for him, while kings went to war, it was 
enough to make provision for himself and his children in this 
life, or make sure of good things in the next, and let the world 
take its way. It was not to be wondered at that he came to 
find the world uninteresting outside his own concerns — his 
bodily wants and his religion. He had to submit perforce to 
whatever violences or exactions the kinir or his ministers chose 
to put upon him; he had no defence but concealment; and 
he developed the bravery, not of action, but of endurance, and 
an extraordinary secretiveness. He became the Oriental whom 
we know. 


Then with the appearance of Hellenism twenty-five centuries 
ago there was a new thing in the earth. The Greeks did not 
find themselves shut up to the alternative of tribal rudeness 
or cultured despotism. They passed from the tribal stage to 
a form of association which was neither the one nor the other 
— the city-state. They were not absolutely the first to develop 
the city-state ; they had been preceded by the Semites of 
Syria. Before Athens and Sparta were heard of, Tyre and 
Sidon had spread their name over the Mediterranean. But it 
was not till the city-state entered into combination with the 
peculiar endowments of the Hellenes that it produced a new 
and wonderful form of culture. 

The race among whom the city-state bore this fruit was 
not spread over rich plains, like those in which the older 
civilizations had their seat. It was broken into a hundred 
fragments and distributed among mountain valleys and islands. 
These natural divisions tended to withhold its groups from 
fusion, whilst the sea, which ran in upon it everywhere in 
long creeks and bays, invited it to intercourse and enterprise. 
Under these circumstances the original tribal villages grouped 
themselves upon centres which constituted cities. For so large a 
number of men to enter upon so close co-operation as the city- 
state implied had not been possible under the old tribal system. 
But their doing so was a pre-requisite for that elaboration of 
life which we call civilized. At the same time the city was 
not too large for the general voice of its members to find 
collective expression. It was a true instinct which led the 
Greek republics to be above all things jealous of their inde- 
pendence to fret at any restraint by which their separate 
sovereignty was sacrificed in some larger combination. 

Hellenism, as that culture may most conveniently be called, 
was the product of the Greek city-state. How far it was due 
to the natural aptitudes of the Greeks, and how far to the 
form of political association under which they lived, need not 
now be discussed. It will be enough to indicate the real 
connexion between the form of the Greek state and the char- 
acteristics which made Hellenism different from any civilization 
which before had been. 

We may discern in Hellenism a moral and an intellectual 


side ; it implied a certain type of character, and it implied a 
certain cast of ideas. It was of the former that the Greek 
was thinking when he distinguished himself as a free man 
from the barbarian. The authority he obeyed was not an 
external one. He had grown up with the consciousness of 
being the member of a free state, a state in which he had an 
individual value, a share in the sovereignty. This gave him 
a self-respect strange to those Orientals whom he smiled to 
see crawling prostrate before the thrones of their kings. It 
gave him an energy of will, a power of initiative impossible 
to a unit of those driven multitudes. It gave his speech a 
directness and simplicity which disdained courtly circum- 
locutions and exaggerations. It gave his manners a striking 
naturalness and absence of constraint. 

But he was the member of a state. Freedom meant for 
him nothing which approached the exemption of the individual 
from his obligations to, and control by, the community. The 
life of the Greek citizen was dominated by his duty to the 
state. The state claimed him, body and spirit, and enforced 
its claims, not so much by external rewards and penalties, as 
by implanting its ideals in his soul, by fostering a sense of 
honour and a sense of obHgation. Corruption and venality 
have always been the rule in governments of the Oriental 
pattern. The idea of the state as an object of devotion, 
operating on the main body of citizens and in the secret 
passages of their lives — this was a new thing in the Greek 
republics. It was this which gave force to the laws and 
savour to the public debates. It was this as much as his 
personal courage which made the citizen-soldier obey cheer- 
fully and die collectedly in his place. It is easy to point to 
lapses from this ideal in the public men of ancient Greece ; 
even Miltiades, Themistocles, and Demosthenes had not always 
clean hands. But no one would contend that the moral 
qualities which the free state tended to produce were universal 
among the Greeks or wholly absent among the barbarians. 
It is a question of degree. Without a higher standard of 
public honesty, a more cogent sense of public duty than an 
Oriental state can show, the free institutions of Greece could 
not have worked for a month. 


The Hellenic character no sooner attained distinct being 
than the Greek attracted the attention of the older peoples 
as a force to be reckoned with. Kings became aware that 
a unique race of soldiers, upon which they could draw, had 
appeared. In fact, the first obvious consequence of the union 
of independence and discipline in the Greek, as it afi'ected the 
rest of the world, was to make him the military superior of 
the men of other nations. At the very dawn of Greek history, 
in the seventh century B.C., Pharaoh-Necho employed Greek 
mercenaries, and in recognition of their services (perhaps on 
that field where King Josiah of Judah fell) dedicated his 
corslet at a Greek shrine.^ The brother of the poet Alcaeus ^ 
won distinction in the army of the king of Babylon. Under 
the later Egyptian kings the corps of Greek mercenaries 
counted for much more than the native levies. The Persian 
conquest, which overspread Western Asia in the latter part of 
the sixth century and the beginning of the fifth, was checked 
on Greek soil, and the armies of the Great King rolled back 
with appalling disaster. By the end of the century the 
Persians had come, like the Egyptians, to place their main 
reliance on Greek mercenaries. The superiority of the Greeks 
was displayed openly by the Ten Thousand and the campaigns 
of Agesilaus. From this time it was clear that if the Hellenic 
race could concentrate its forces in any political union it 
might rule the world.^ 

Besides a certain type of character, a new intellectual type 
was presented by the Greeks. The imagination of the Greeks 
was perhaps not richer, their feeling not more intense than 
that of other peoples — in the religious sentiment, for instance, 
we might even say the Greek stood behind the Oriental ; but 
the imagination and feeling of the Greeks were more strictly 
regulated. The Greek made a notable advance in seeing the 
world about him as it really was. He wanted to understand 
it as a rational whole. The distinguishing characteristic 
which marks all the manifestations of his mind, in politics, 
in philosophy, in art, is his critical faculty, his rationalism, 
or, to put the same thing in another way, his bent of referring 

^ Hdt. ii. 159. 2 strabo xiii. 617. 

^ Swd/xevov dpxei-v iravTitiv, /xtas TU7xdi'oi' TroXiret'as, Aristot. Polit. vii. 7. 


things to the standard of reason and reality. He was far 
more circumspect than the Oriental in verifying his impres- 
sions. He could not always take a traditional opinion or 
custom for granted and rest satisfied with the declaration, 
" So it was from the beginning," or " Such was the manner of 
our fathers." His mind was the more emancipated from the 
tyranny of custom that it might be the more subjected to 
the guidance of truth. 

And here again we may see the influence of his political 
environment. There is nothing in a despotism to quicken 
thought ; the obedience demanded is unreasoning ; the prin- 
ciples of government are locked in the king's breast. In a 
Greek city it was far otherwise. In the democracies especially 
the citizens were all their lives accustomed to have alternative 
policies laid before them in the Assembly, to listen to the 
pleadings in the law-courts, to follow opposed arguments. 
What one moment appeared true was presently probed and 
convicted of fallacy. Institutions were justified or impugned 
by reference to the large principles of the Beautiful or the 
Profitable. The Greek lived in an atmosphere of debate ; the 
market - place was a school of gymnastic for the critical 
faculty. Plato could only conceive of the reasoning process 
as a dialogue. 

Under these circumstances, in spite of the natural rever- 
ence for accepted custom and belief, in spite of the opposition 
of the more conservative tempers — an opposition which 
we still hear grumbling throughout Greek literature — the 
critical faculty came increasingly into play. It came into all 
spheres of activity as an abiding principle of progress. Of 
progress, as opposed to stagnation, because it held the estab- 
lished on its trial ; of progress, as opposed to random move- 
ment, because it regulated the course of innovation. The 
state, in which this faculty operates, shows the characteristic 
of a living organism, continuous modification according to 

The critical faculty, the reason — in one light it appears as 
the sense of proiwrtion ; the sense of proportion in politics, 
" common sense," balance of judgment ; the sense of proportion 
in behaviour, which distinguishes what is seemly for the 


occasion and the person concerned ; the sense of proportion in 
art, which eliminates the redundant and keeps each detail in 
its due subordination to the whole. How prominent this 
aspect of the critical faculty was with the Greeks their 
language itself shows ; reason and proportion are expressed by 
a common word. " The Hellenes," Polybius says. " differ 
mainly in this respect from other men, that they keep to 
what is due in each case." ^ MrjBev ayav, " Nothing in excess," 
is the most characteristic piece of Hellenic wisdom. 

We have arrived at this, that the distinctive quality of 
the Hellenic mind is a rationalism, which on one side of it is 
a grasp of the real world, and on another side a sense of pro- 
portion. How true this is in the sphere of art, literary or 
plastic, no one acquainted with either needs to be told. We 
can measure the bound forward made in human history by 
the Greeks between twenty and twenty-five centuries ago if 
we compare an Attic tragedy with the dreary verbiage of the 
Avesta or the relics of Egyptian Hterature recovered from 
temple and tomb. Or contrast the Parthenon, a single 
thought in stone, a living unity exquisitely adjusted in all its 
parts, with the unintelligent piles of the Egyptians, mechani- 
cally uniform, impressive from bulk, from superficial ornament, 
and the indescribable charm of the Nile landscape. 

But notable as were the achievements of the Greeks in the 
sphere of art, still more momentous for mankind was the 
impulse they gave to science. With them a broader daylight 
began to play upon all the relations of human life and the 
appearances of nature. They submitted man and the world 
to a more systematic investigation, they thought more methodi- 
cally, more sanely, about things than any people had done 
before them. In process of doing so they brought into 
currency a large number of new ideas, of new canons of 
judgment, embodied in systems of philosophy, in floating 
theories, in the ordinary language of the street. The systems 
of philosophy were, of course, as systems, provisional, inade- 
quate, and full of crudities ; each of them had ultimately to 
be discarded by mankind ; but many of the ideas which made 
up their fabric, much of the material, so to speak, used in their 

^ To /car' d|tW eKdffTots r-qpuv, Polyb. v. 90, 8. 


construction, survived as of permanent value, and was available 
for sounder combinations hereafter. And secondly, besides a 
body of permanently valid ideas which represented the 
finished product of the Greek method of inquiry, the Greeks 
transmitted that method itself to the world. We can see 
to-day that the method, in the form to which the Greeks 
brought it, was as imperfect as the results it yielded. But it 
was nevertheless an advance on anything which had gone 
before. The Greek stood far behind the modern scientific 
inquirer in his comprehension of the means to extort her 
secrets from Nature, but he arrived at a juster conception of 
reasoning, he dealt more soberly with evidence, than it had 
been within the power of mankind up till his time to do. 
And, imperfect as the method was, it contained within itself 
the means for its own improvement. Men once set thinking 
on the right lines would carry the process farther and farther. 
Hellenism was great in its potency ; in its promise it was 
far greater. 

We have attempted to explain what we mean by Hellenism, 
to place in a clear light what distinguished the civilization 
developed in the city-republics of the Greeks between the 
tenth and fourth centuries before Christ from all that the 
world had yet known. It remains to consider what the 
fortunes of that civilization, once introduced into the world, 
had been. It had been developed by the city-state in virtue 
of certain qualities which this form of association possessed, 
but which were not possessed by the Oriental despotisms — 
comparative restriction of size, internal liberty, and the habit 
of free discussion. But by the fourth century before Christ it 
had become apparent that these very qualities carried with 
them grave defects. The bitterness of faction in these free 
cities reached often appalling lengths and led to terrible 
atrocities. Almost everywhere the energies of the race were 
frittered in perpetual discord. The critical faculty itself 
began to work destructively upon the institutions which had 
generated it. The imperfections of the small state were 
increasingly exposed, and yet the smallness appeared necessary 
to freedom. Also the Greeks now suffered for their back- 
wardness in the matter of religion. The Jews were left at the 


fall of their state still in presence of a living God, who claimed 
their allegiance ; the Greek religion was so damaged by the 
play of criticism that at the decay of civic morality the Greeks 
had no adequate religious tradition to fall back upon. 

Again, the separation of the race into a number of small 
states, while it had produced an incomparable soldiery, pre- 
vented the formation of a great military power. It was in 
vain that idealists preached an allied attack of all the Greeks 
upon the great barbarian empire which neighboured them on 
the east. The Persian king had nothing serious to fear from 
the Greek states ; each of them was ready enough to take his 
gold in order to use it against its rivals, and the dreaded 
soldiery he enrolled by masses in his own armies. 

It was in the union of a great force under a single control 
that Oriental monarchy was strong. Could Hellenism remedy 
the defects of disunion by entering into some alliance with the 
monarchic principle ? Would it be untrue to itself in doing 
so ? What price would it have to pay for worldly supremacy ? 
These problems confronted Greek politicians in a concrete 
form when, in the fourth century before Christ, Macedonia 
entered as a new power upon the scene. 

Macedonia was a monarchic state, but not one of the same 
class as the Persian Empire, or the empires which had preceded 
the Persian. It belonged rather to those which have but half 
emerged from the tribal stage. There had been an " heroic " 
monarchy of a like kind in Greece itself, as we see it in the 
Homeric poems. It resembled still more closely perhaps the 
old Persian kingdom, as it had been when Cyrus went forth 
conquering and to conquer. The bulk of the people was 
formed of a vigorous peasantry who still retained the rude 
virtues engendered by tribal freedom, and showed towards 
the King himself an outspoken independence of carriage. 
The King was but the chief of one of the great families, of 
one which had been raised by earlier chiefs to a position of 
power and dignity above the rest. The other houses, whose 
heads had once been themselves little kings, each in his own 
mountain region, now formed a hereditary nobility which 
surrounded, and to some extent controlled, the throne. But 
this comparative independence did not impair the advantage, 


from the military point of view, which came from the con- 
centration of power in one hand. When the King resolved 
to go to war he could caU out the whole ban of the kingdom, 
and his people were bound to obey his summons. The nobles 
came to the field on horse, his " Companions " they were 
called {eralpoL) ; the peasantry on foot, his " Foot- companions " 
{ire^eraipoC)} The stout pikemen of Macedonia saw in their 
King not their hereditary chief only, but a good comrade; 
and the sense of this made them follow him, we may believe, 
with a prouder and more cheerful loyalty in those continual 
marchings to and fro across the Illyrian and Thracian hills. 

Philip the Second of Macedonia, having made his kingdom 
the strongest power of the Balkan peninsula, presented himself 
to the Hellenes as their captain -general against barbarism. 
There were many considerations to make this offer one which 
the Hellenes could with dignity accept. In the first place, 
the Macedonians, though not actually Hellenes, were probably 
close of kin, a more backward branch of the same stock. In 
the second place, Hellenism itself had penetrated largely into 
Macedonia. Although it had required a certain set of political 
conditions to produce Hellenism, a great part of Hellenism, 
once developed — the body of ideas, of literary and artistic 
tastes — was communicable to men who had not themselves lived 
under those conditions. We find, therefore, that by the fourth 
century B.C. Hellenism was already exerting influence outside 
its own borders. The Phoenicians of Cyprus, for example, the 
Lycians and Carians were partially Hellenized. But in no 
country was the Hellenic culture more predominant than in 
the neighbouring Macedonia. The ruling house claimed to be 
of good Greek descent and traced its pedigree to the old kings 
of Argos. The court was a gathering-place of Greek literati, 
philosophers, artists, and adventurers. Euripides, we remember, 
had ended his days there under King Archelaus. Philip, who 
had spent a part of his youth as a hostage in Thebes, was well 
conversant with Greek language and literature. The man in 
whom Greek wisdom reached its climax was engaged to form 

^ The formation of the Macedonian infantry was certainly subsequent to that 
of the Companion cavalry, and perhaps the work of Philip. Kaerst, Geschichte 
des hellenist. Zeitalters, i. (1901), p. 136. 


the mind of his son. Alexander's own ideals were drawn from 
the heroic poetry of Greece. The nobility as a whole took its 
colour from the court ; we may suppose that Greek was 
generally understood among them. Their names are, with a 
few exceptions, pure Greek. 

Should the Hellenes accept Philip's terms — confederation 
under Macedonian suzerainty against the barbaric world ? In 
most of the Greek states this question, the crucial question of 
the day, was answered Yes and No with great fierceness and 
partizan eloquence. The No has found immortal expression 
in Demosthenes. But history decided for the affirmative. 
Philip, who offered, had the power to compel. 

So Hellenism enters on quite a new chapter of its history. 
On the one hand that separate independence of the states 
which had conditioned its growth was doomed ; on the other 
hand a gigantic military power arose, inspired by Hellenic 
ideas. The break-up of the Macedonian Empire at Alexander's 
death, it is true, gave a breathing space to Greek independence 
in its home, and imperilled the ascendancy of Greek culture in 
the newly conquered fields. But for a long time the ruling 
powers in the Balkan peninsula, in Asia Minor, Egypt, Babylon, 
Iran, the lands of the Indus — of all those countries which 
had been the seats of Aryan and Semitic civilization — con- 
tinued to be monarchic courts, Greek in speech and mind. 

Then when the Greek dynasties dwindle, when the sceptre 
seems about to return to barbarian hands, Eome, the real 
successor of Alexander, having itself taken all the mental and 
artistic culture it possesses from the Greeks, steps in to lend 
the strength of its arm to maintain the supremacy of Greek 
civilization in the East. India certainly is lost, Iran is lost, 
to Hellenism, but on this side of the Euphrates its domain is 
triumphantly restored. Hellenism, however, had still to pay 
the price. The law of ancient history was inexorable : a large 
state must be a monarchic state. Eome in becoming a world- 
power became a monarchy. 

This, then, is the second chapter of the history of Hellenism : 
it is propagated and maintained by despotic kings, first Mace- 
donian, and then Eoman. The result is as might have been 
expected. Firstly, Hellenism is carried far beyond its original 


borders: the vessel is broken and the long- secreted elixir 
poured out for the nations. On the other hand the internal 
development of Hellenism is arrested. Death did not come 
all at once. It was not till the Mediterranean countries were 
united under the single rule of Eome that the Greek states 
lost all independence of action. Scientific research under the 
patronage of kings made considerable progress for some 
centuries after Alexander, now that new fields were thrown 
open by Macedonian and Eoman conquests to the spirit of 
inquiry which had been developed among the Hellenes before 
their subjection. But philosophy reached no higher point 
after Aristotle ; the work of the later schools was mainly to 
popularize ideas already reached by the few. Literature and 
art declined from the beginning of the Macedonian empire, 
both being thenceforth concerned only with the industrious 
study and reproduction of the works of a freer age, except for 
some late blooms (like the artistic schools of Rhodes and 
Pergamos) into which the old sap ran before it dried. Learning, 
laborious, mechanical, unprogressive, took the place of creation. 
As for the moral side of Hellenism, we find a considerable 
amount of civic patriotism subsisting for a long time both in 
the old Greek cities and in the new ones which sprang up 
over the East. When patriotism could no longer take the 
form of directing and defending the city as a sovereign state 
it could still spend money and pains in works of benevolence 
for the body of citizens or in making the city beautiful to see. 
The ruins of Greek building scattered over Nearer Asia belong 
by an enormous majority to Roman times. Athens itself was 
more splendid in appearance under Hadrian than under Pericles. 
But even this latter-day patriotism gradually died away. 

It was not only that the monarchic principle was in itself 
unfavourable to the development of Greek culture. The 
monarchy became more and more like those despotisms of the 
older world which it had replaced. We know how quickly 
Alexander assumed the robe and character of the Persian king. 
The earlier Roman Emperors were restrained by the traditions 
of the Republic, but these became obsolete, and the court of 
Diocletian or of Constantine differed nothing from the type 
shown by the East. 


It is an early phase of this second chapter of Hellenic 
history that we watch in the career of the Seleucid dynasty. 
By far the largest part of Alexander's empire was for some 
time under the sway of Seleucus and his descendants, and that 
the part containing the seats of all the older civilizations, 
except the Egyptian. It was under the aegis of the house of 
Seleucus that Hellenism struck roots during the third century 
before Christ in all lands from the Mediterranean to the Pamir. 
We see Hellenic civilization everywhere, still embodied in city- 
states, but subject city-states, at issue with the two antagonistic 
principles of monarchy and of barbarism, but compelled to 
make a compromise with the first of these to save itself from 
the second. We see the dynasty that stands for Hellenism 
grow weaker and more futile, till the Eomans, when they roll 
back the Armenian invasion from Syria, find only a shadow of 
it surviving. Lastly, we can see in the organization and in- 
stitutions of the Eoman Empire much that was taken over 
from the Hellenistic kingdoms which went before. 

We have tried to define the significance of the Seleucid 
epoch by showing the place it holds in ancient history. But 
we should have gained little, if we stopped short there, if we 
failed to inquire in what relation the development of ancient 
history in its sum stands to the modern world of which we 
form part. The Hellenism of which ancient history makes 
everything, developed in the city-republics of Greece, propagated 
by Alexander, sustained by the Seleucids and Eome, and 
involved in the fall of the Eoman Empire — what has become 
of it in the many centuries since then ? 

No antithesis is more frequent in the popular mouth 
to-day than that between East and West, between the 
European spirit and the Oriental. We are familiar with the 
superiority, the material supremacy, of European civilization. 
When, however, we analyze this difference of the European, 
when we state what exactly the qualities are in which the 
Western presents such a contrast to the Oriental, they turn 
out to be just those which distinguished the ancient Hellene 
from the Oriental of his day. On the moral side the citizen 
of the modern European state, like the citizen of the old 
Greek city, is conscious of a share in the government, is 


distinguished from the Oriental by a higher political morality 
(higher, for all its lapses), a more manly self-reliance, and a 
greater power of initiative. On the intellectual side it is the 
critical spirit which lies at the basis of his political sense, of 
his conquests in the sphere of science, of his sober and mighty 
literature, of his body of well-tested ideas, of his power of 
consequent thought. And whence did the modern European 
derive these qualities ? The moral part of them springs in 
large measure from the same source as in the case of the 
Greeks — political freedom ; the intellectual part of them is a 
direct legacy from the Greeks. What we call the Western 
spirit in our own day is really Hellenism reincarnate. 

Our habit of talking about "East" and "West" as if 
these were two species of men whose distinctive qualities 
were derived from their geographical position, tends to obscure 
the real facts from us. The West has by no means been 
always " Western." Before the Hellenic culture came into 
existence the tribal system went on for unknown ages in 
Europe, with no essential difference from the tribal system as 
it went on, and still goes on, in Asia. Then, in the East, 
the tendencies which promoted larger combinations led to 
monarchy, as the only principle on which such combinations 
could be formed. Asia showed its free tribes and its despotic 
kingdoms as the only two types of association. The peoples 
of South Europe seemed for a time to have escaped this 
dilemma, to have established a third type. The third type, 
indeed, subsisted for a while, and generated the Hellenic 
spirit ; but the city-state proved after all too small. These 
peoples had in the end to accept monarchy. And the result 
was the same in Europe as it had been in Asia. If before the 
rise of Hellenism, Europe had resembled the Asia of the free 
tribes, under the later Eoman Empire it resembled the Asia 
which popular thought connects with the term " Oriental," 
the Asia of the despotic monarchies. The type of character 
produced by monarchy was in both continents the same. In 
Greece and Italy under Constantine there was the same lack 
of spirit, of originality, of political interest ; men's interests 
were absorbed by the daily business and theological controversy. 
The result was the same in the West, one important 
VOL. I c 


respect left out of count. Sterile, fixed, incased in an old 
literature, the intellectual products of Hellenic thought re- 
mained — remained as the dry seed of a dead plant, which 
may yet break into life again in a congenial soil. By the 
irruption of the Northern races, which began the Middle Ages, 
Europe went back again to times like those before Hellenism 
was ; again there was the rude freedom of fighting tribes, and 
from this kingdoms emerged, near enough to the tribal state 
to retain its virtues — kingdoms resembling the Macedonian. 
And all through the chaos the seeds of the old culture were 
carefully nursed : yes, even to some small extent bore fruit in 
a few ruHng minds. Then comes the process we call the 
Renaissance, the springing of the seed to life again, the seed 
which could only grow and thrive in the soil of freedom. 
The problem which had been insoluble to the ancient world — 
how to have a state, free and civilized, larger than a city — has 
been solved by the representative system, by the invention of 
printing which enormously facilitated the communication of 
thought, and still more completely in recent times by the new 
forces of steam and electricity that have been called into play. 

Men at the Eenaissance took up the thoughts of the 
Greeks again where they had dropped them. The old litera- 
ture was no longer simply a thing for parrot-learning ; it was 
the seed from which other literatures, other philosophies and 
sciences, wider and more mature than the ancient, but identical 
in germ, sprang into being. " We are all Greeks," Shelley 
truly said. The Eenaissance was four or five centuries ago ; 
it is only so long that the " Western " spirit has been at work 
in its new incarnation, and it has achieved some notable 
results. We do not yet see whereto this thing will grow. 

There is one particular part of the activity of Western 
civilization since the Renaissance which lends its principal 
interest to the history of the Macedonian kings in the East — 
the extension of European rule in the East of to-day. It was 
a consequence of the smallness of the ancient free state that 
it could not compete with the great monarchies of the world 
in military power. But this limitation has been done away, 
and as a result the states of Western culture have risen to a 
position of immeasurable military superiority. This is one of 


the capital features of modern history. Instead, therefore, of 
the internal development and outward expansion of rational 
culture being processes which are mutually exclusive, they 
have in these centuries gone on side by side. Free states 
have been able, without prejudice to their freedom, to bring 
under their rule the more backward races of the earth. 
To-day an enormous part of the East is under the direct 
government of Europeans ; all of it is probably destined 
(unless it can assimilate the dominant civilization, as the 
Japanese appear to have done) to be so at no distant date. 

We may say then with perfect truth that the work being 
done by European nations, and especially by England, in the 
East is the same work which was begun by Macedonia and 
Rome, and undone by the barbarian floods of the Middle 
Ages. The civilization which perished from India with the 
extinction of the Greek kings has come back again in the 
British official. What will the effect be ? An experiment 
of enthralling interest is being tried before our eyes. Those 
who predict its issue by some easy commonplace about the 
eternal distinction of " East " and " West " have given 
inadequate consideration to the history of East and West. 
Hellenism has as yet had very little time to show what it 
can do. 

Whatever the issue be, a peculiar interest must be felt 
by Englishmen in those Western kings who ruled in Asia 
twenty centuries ago. And it is not only the continuity of 
Hellenic culture which links their days to ours. Hellenism 
lives again, we have said, in the civilization of modern Europe, 
but Hellenism is not the only animating principle of that 
civilization. Our religion came to us from Zion. Israel 
holds as unique a position in the world's history as Greece. 
It was under the Macedonian kings in the East twenty 
centuries ago that Hellenism and Israel first came into 
contact, under the Ptolemies into more or less friendly 
contact, under the Seleucids into contact very far from 
friendly, resulting in wild explosion, which shook the fabric 
of Seleucid power. It is a meeting of very momentous 
significance in the history of man, the first meeting of two 
principles destined to achieve so much in combination. The 


lands over whicli the house of Seleucus bore rule, the lands 
which it overspread with Greek speech and culture, were the 
lands which the faith of Christ first leavened ; in its royal 
city the word " Christian " was first uttered. Antioch was 
the cradle of the first Gentile church. 




Spa, Ml 






Westeen Asia — all that group of countries which by the last 
turn of destiny in 3 2 3 B.C. had fallen to the Macedonian chiefs 
to be dealt with at their pleasure — had been the soil of many 
histories, wonderful and momentous enough for the human 
race, before the Macedonians had ever known it, and was to 
be the soil of histories more wonderful and more momentous 
still. It is marked out by certain general features as a 
different world from Europe, by features which shape and 
qualify to a considerable extent the histories enacted in it, 
and of these the most fundamental, uninteresting as it may 
sound, is a generally low rainfall. The atmosphere is 
peculiarly dry. 

The consequences of this one peculiarity reach far. In 
the first place large tracts are either absolutely barren, mere 
sun-baked stone and sand, or able only to support men who 
roam with their herds over a large area. But it happens to 
be traversed by mountain ranges whose summits reach up 
and, catching the fugitive vapour from the sea, roll it down 
their sides in the form of rivers. It is only in the neighbour- 
hood of the mountains and along the sea-board that a settled 
population can sow and reap, or where the rivers generated 
in the mountains are strong enough to carry their waters far 
out into the desert, so that men living on their banks can 
make up for the defect of rain by irrigation. In this contest 
with the desert many of the rivers of Western Asia are 
ultimately worsted, and perish before they find the sea. 

Take a map of Europe, and the different departments we 



see marked out represent tracts available throughout, but in 
a map of Alexander's Empire only part of each province counts. 
The rest is waste land — the desolation of the level desert, 
the desolation of the mountains. The mountains, although 
they catch and store the rain, are necessarily barren themselves 
in their higher parts, and only on their lower slopes and foot- 
hills can furnish the means of life to a civilized population — 
a population with more requirements than rude and ill-housed 
mountain tribes. The belts between mountain and desert, 
the banks of the great rivers, the lower hills near the sea, 
these are the lines of civilization (actual or potential) in- 
Western Asia. The consequence of these conditions is that 
through all the history of Western Asia there runs the eternal 
distinction between the civilized cultivators of the plains and 
lower hills and the wild peoples of mountain and desert. The 
great monarchies which have arisen here have rarely been 
effective beyond the limits of cultivation; mountain and 
desert are another world in which they can get, at best, only 
precarious footing. And to the monarchical settled peoples 
the near neighbourhood of this uusubjugated world has been 
a continual menace. It is a chaotic region out of which may 
pour upon them at any weakening of the dam hordes of 
devastators. At the best of times it hampers the government 
by offering a refuge and recruiting-ground to all the enemies 
of order. Between the royal governments and the free tribes 
the feud is secular. The ordinary policy of the Asiatic 
monarchies has been simply to safeguard the great highways 
of communication. It obviously follows from the restriction 
of civilized habitation to the narrow belts of territory just 
described that the main roads are fixed by nature to certain 
definite lines. The task set before itself by these governments 
has been, not that of holding an immense continuous area, but 
the comparatively simpler one of holding these lines. It is 
important to remember this in connexion with rapid conquests 
like that of Alexander. To conquer the Achaemenian Empire 
did not mean the effective occupation of all the area within 
its extreme frontiers — that would have been a task exceeding 
one man's lifetime — but the conquest of its cultivated districts 
and the holding of the roads which connected them. 


In this eternal contest between civilized government and 
the free children of mountain and desert the frontiers which 
divide the two are necessarily shifting. Sometimes a region 
able, if proper pains be spent on it, to support civilization has 
been so overrun by the nomads as to fall altogether to their 
domain. This has been the case with most of the country 
along the lower Euphrates, once populous and lined with 
flourishing cities, and now, under the wretched Turkish 
administration, only the pasture ground of the Bedawin. On 
the other hand, sometimes civilized government has been able 
to push its way farther into the desert, higher up the 
mountain, either by conquest, or, more often, by the strong 
men of the tribes founding monarchies in imitation of the 
monarchies of the plain. This was the case with the Persians, 
highland clans at the dawn of history, but inhabiting valleys 
which were not unfruitful. 

A thorough subjugation, however, of mountain and desert 
has been beyond the power of any Asiatic monarchy. If the 
great roads can be protected from marauders, enough seems 
accomplished. And even this was very imperfectly achieved 
by the Achaemenian government which preceded Alexander. 
With the entrance of Alexander upon the scene a new spirit, 
more vigorous, more alert, and, above all, more consequent 
than that of Asiatic monarchy, comes into action. It is not 
Alexander's intention to acquiesce in the defiance to his 
government offered by the free tribes. The Macedonians 
knew, by their old experience of lUyrian and Thracian, the 
habits of such folk. For the hill-tribes of Asia were not very 
different from the hill -tribes of Europe; they were both 
peoples who had remained at the same stage of barbarism 
when the lowlanders had gone on to civilization. It is 
significant that Alexander, at his first entry into Asia, goes 
out of his way to chastise the Pisidians and the tribes of 
Antibanus.-^ When the Huzha (Uxii) a little later on ask for 
the immemorial blackmail they have to learn by a sharp 
stroke that the ways of Alexander are not the ways of a 
Persian king.^ The tribes of the wilderness also feel his hand. 

1 Plutarch, Ale:>: 24. . 

' AiT. Anah. iii. 17 ; cf. Autigonus and the Cossaeaus, Diod. xix. 19, 3. 


On the Scythians of the Central- Asia tic steppe he did actually 
inflict some salutary blows; he was preparing in 323 to deal 
with the Bedawin. His policy perhaps envisaged the ultimate 
subjection of mountain and desert ; but little more than a 
beginning of such a work had been made at his death, and its 
accomplishment would have taken centuries. 

When the day comes for European government to be 
re-established in Western Asia it will be seen whether its 
operation, immensely more powerful than that of any Asiatic 
monarchy, does not bring the old license of mountain and 
desert to an end. Already weapons of scientific precision are 
working a transformation in the Nearer East. We hear so 
much of the decay of the Ottoman and Persian monarchies, 
and their power in relation to other states is in truth so 
fallen, that we hardly realize that there has never been a 
time when they have been so consolidated internally, when 
the central government has made its authority so effective 
throughout the realm. Already some of the extreme provinces 
of Alexander's Empire are once more under European rule ; 
British and Eussian administrators are grappling with the 
problem of the mountain and desert tribes, with the Afridi 
of the frontier hills and the Kirghiz of the steppe. But 
instead of the sarissa and bow with which Alexander had 
to work, his modern successors have the rifle and the mountain 
battery, and who knows but progressive science may put into 
their hands before long means of mastery more certain still ? 

From considering the general characteristics of Western 
Asia we must pass to some review of its arrangement. The 
enormous plateau of Central Asia is adjoined on the west 
by a separate smaller plateau, that of Iran, and this again on 
the west by a third, still smaller plateau, the Anatolian (Asia 
Minor). The two last of these fall within the political system 
of Western Asia. All the three plateaus have some features 
in common. The centre of each is desert, or at best steppe, 
and they are each surrounded by mountain ramparts. Between 
the Central - Asiatic plateau and the Iranian intervenes the 
mountain mass whose nucleus is the Pamir, and whose off- 
shoots, from the Hindu-Kush to the Sulaiman range, spread 
like a fan over Eastern Iran, the country which corresponds 


roughly to the modern principality of Afghanistan. The 
Iranian plateau again is separated from Asia Minor by the 
mountain mass of Armenia. There is yet a fourth plateau in 
Western Asia, the Arabian peninsula ; but this, although it 
did not lie outside the bounds of Alexander's Empire, as he 
projected it in idea, did lie outside the actual possession of 
Alexander and his successors, and therefore outside our field of 
vision in this book. All the sides of the Anatolian plateau 
slope down to the sea except that towards Armenia. The 
Iranian plateau, contrariwise, is only bordered by water on its 
southern side, and along part of its northern, where its rim 
overlooks the Caspian. Its north-west corner mingles with 
the " Alpine " country of Armenia, which links it to Anatolia ; 
along most of its eastern side it is bordered by the Alpine 
country of East Iran (Afghanistan), which links it to Central 
Asia. At all other points it slopes down to the level desert ; 
at its north-eastern extremity to the deserts of the Caspian 
and Azov basins (Kussian Turkestan) ; along its south-western 
face to the desert, which is variously called in its different 
parts Syrian, Mesopotamian, and North Arabian, but which, 
since it is altogether the domain of the Bedawin Arabs, we will 
call simply the Arabian desert ; and lastly, at its south-eastern 
extremity to the sand-drifts of Beluchistan. Between the 
deserts which take up so much of the interior of the plateaus 
and the deserts or seas which stretch outside of them intervene 
the belts of mountain country which constitute the plateaus' 
rim. The Anatolian plateau, being comparatively small, has 
no part beyond the reach of rains — it is not want of water in 
this case which makes the central region sterile — but farther 
east the border ranges and the two intermediate mountain 
groups (Armenia and the Pamir), together with that long line 
of mountain shot out from Armenia between the Arabian 
desert and the eastern end of the Mediterranean (making 
Syria) — these various mountains and hills catch all the 
moisture which avails to redeem from the desert on either 
side some productive tracts. Some of this moisture drains 
down into the interior of the plateaus, making a sort of 
verdure along the inward faces and the crevices of the border 
ranges, but since the faces turned towards the sea naturally 


get most of it, the great rivers of Nearer Asia How, not into 
the interior, but outwards to the sea. 

Of the rivers west of Iran the mightiest are those two 
which take their rise in the Armenian uplands and flow 
through the Arabian desert to the Persian Gulf. Were it not 
for the Euphrates and Tigris all the space between Syria and Iran 
would be an area of immense dearth. But these rivers are to 
the Arabian desert what the Nile is to the Libyan, carrying 
with them a green line of fertility, and capable of nursing a 
succession of cities. The Tigris takes the straighter course 
south-east, parallel with, and not very far from, the ranges 
which border Iran, swelled as it goes by the waters which 
these send down their sides. Both the head streams of the 
Euphrates flow west ; then, as a single river, it sweeps round, 
enters the Arabian desert, and crosses it diagonally. At one 
point, about 350 miles from its mouth, it seems about to 
mingle with its brother river on the east. From Baghdad on the 
Tigris the Euphrates is only 25 miles distant. But thence it 
again diverges to enter the sea — in ancient times — by a 
separate mouth ; now the two rivers do really join at Kurna. 
This narrow waist of land between the rivers in the region of 
Baghdad marks a change in the character of the country. 
North of it the land between the two rivers is desert — part of 
the great Arabian desert which sweeps from Syria to the con- 
fines of Iran — only the immediate neighbourhood of the rivers 
being habitable. South of it the rivers were connected in ancient 
times by a network of canals, quickening the soil, dark alluvium, 
into exuberant fertility. This was Babylonia, a level fat land, 
like the Egyptian delta, a land of corn-fields and gardens, of 
osiers and palms. It was the richest country of Nearer Asia, 
the seat of its oldest civilization, the natural focus of its life. 

The Asiatic part, therefore, of Alexander's Empire, with 
which the Empire of Seleucus at its greatest extent nearly 
coincided, falls into certain clearly marked divisions : — ■ 

(1) The "country beyond the Taurus," i.e. the Anatolian 
peninsula (Asia Minor) without Cilicia.^ 

^ Our authorities living in the "West call it the country on this side of the 
Taurus, iwl rdde rod lavpov. I write "beyond" from the point of view of some 
one at the geographical centre of the empire. 


(2) Syria, and, closely connected with it, Cilicia on the 
west and Mesopotamia on the east, i.e. the Aramaean country. 

(3) The lowlands about the Euphrates and Tigris, the seats 
of the old Assyrio - Babylonian civilisation, together with 
Susiana (Elam). 

(4) Iran. 

(5) The Indian provinces, covering a great part of the 

After narrating the series of events which led up to the 
virtual conquest of the whole heritage of Alexander by 
Seleucus, I propose in the first instance to follow the history 
of his successors up to the death of Seleucus III only in so 
far as it is concerned with the first of the divisions above 
mentioned — Asia Minor; then to take each of the other 
divisions in turn and see what can be gleaned of its life under 
these Hellenistic kings. 

An important contribution has lately been made to the literature bear- 
ing on the geography of the Nearer East by Mr. D. G. Hogarth's telling book 
{The Nearer Hast. Heinemann. 1902) — a book which no one interested in 
the past or present history of these countries can afford to leave unread. My 
own chapter naturally purports to do no more than call attention to a single 
characteristic of this part of the world, which has been of great moment for its 



It would not be easy to name any other period of ten years 
in the history of the world beside the reign of Alexander in 
which as momentous a change passed over as large a part of 
the earth — a change which made such difference in the face 
of things. Suddenly the pageant of the greatest empire ever 
known had been swept away. And the power that took its 
place was ruled by ideas which were quite new to the most 
part of mankind, which had hitherto only been current in the 
petty republics of the Hellenes. In the spring of 323 before 
Christ the whole order of things from the Adriatic away to 
the mountains of Central Asia and the dusty plains of the 
Panjab rested upon a single will, a single brain, nurtured in 
Hellenic thought. Then the hand of God, as if trying some 
fantastic experiment, plucked this man away. Who could 
predict for a moment what the result would be ? (May or 
June 323 B.C.) 

The master was removed, but the instrument with which 
he had wrought, the new force he had wielded, was still 
unimpaired — the Macedonian army. It was still only neces- 
sary to get command of that in order to rule the world. The 
Macedonian chiefs took council together near the dead King's 
body in Babylon. To all of them the prospects opened out by 
the sudden turn things had taken must have been at that time 
confused and strange, lightened only by adventurous hopes and 
shadowy ambitions. The question which required instantly 
to be met was what head was to be given to the Empire. He 
must be of the royal house ; so far every one was agreed. 



But the royal house did not offer a brilliant choice — Philip 
Arrhidaeus, a half-witted son of the great Philip by a Thes- 
salian wife, the son still unborn of Alexander and the Iranian 
princess Eoxane (if it proved to be a son), and Heracles, the 
son of Alexander and the Persian Barsine, a boy of about three 
years. The last was not yet seriously put forward, being 
apparently considered illegitimate.^ None of the vast popula- 
tions over whom the new king would reign had any voice in 
choosing him ; the Macedonians encamped in the plains of 
Babylon, men who, eleven years before, knew nothing outside 
the narrow borders of their own land, now chose a king for 
half the world as absolutely as if he were to be only king of 
the Macedonians as of old. Discords immediately appeared. 
The cavalry, our books say, determined to wait for the son to 
whom it was hoped Pioxane would give birth ; the infantry 
were bent on having Philip Arrhidaeus. This distinction of 
cavalry and infantry was not military only, but social. Just 
as the mediaeval knight was of a higher grade in society than 
the foot-soldier, so it was the petite noblesse of Macedonia who 
followed the king as troopers, his " Companions " (eralpot) ; the 
rank and file of the foot were drawn from the peasantry. There 
are indications that it was especially the narrow-minded, free- 
spoken Macedonian pikemen, less open than the class above 
them to liberal influences and large ideas, who had been 
alienated by the restless marchings of Alexander and the 
Oriental trappings he had put on. King Philip was still to 
them the pattern king ; they would not endure to see their old 
master's son passed over in favour of the half-barbarian, still 
prospective issue of Alexander. They had, moreover, nothing to 
gain, as many of the nobles had, by a break-up of the Empire, 
and they suspected that the proposal to wait for the delivery 
of Eoxane veiled a design to deprive the Empire of a head 
altogether. Not till it had come near bloodshed was the dispute 
settled by a compromise. Philip Arrhidaeus and the son of 
Eoxane were both to reign conjointly. Perdiccas, a member 
of the old ruling house in the Orestis region of Macedonia, the 
foremost of all the chiefs gathered in Babylon, was to be Eegent. 

^ dXX' 'AKi^avdpos . . . ovre dWrjv ^yvu] yvvaiKa irpb yd/xov TrXrjV Hapfflvris. 
Plutarch, Alex. 21. 


There were many other great lords and generals in the 
realm, in Babylon, in Macedonia, in the provinces, to whom 
the death of Alexander brought new thoughts. Would the 
Empire hold together, and, if so, what would their position in 
it be ? Would it fall to pieces, and, if so, what could each lay 
hands on for himseK ? The agreement between cavalry and in- 
fantry was followed by a redistribution of the satrapies. To say 
nothing of the possibilities of aggrandizement, no one of mark 
would be safe in such times as those which were coming on, 
unless he could dispose of some power of his own. And no 
power could be well grounded unless it had a territorial support 
— a basis for warlike operations and a source of revenue. It 
was such considerations which now made several of the great 
chiefs, whose commands had hitherto been purely military, 
desire the government of a province. The first to see clearly 
what was required by the new conditions, our authors tell us, 
was Ptolemy the son of Lagus, the most cool-headed and 
judicious of Alexander's generals. It was he, they say, who 
first proposed a resettlement of the satrapies and brought the 
Eegent over by representing it as his interest to remove 
possible rivals to a distance from himself. As a defensible 
base, at any rate, and a source of revenue, no satrapy could 
have been more sagaciously chosen than the one he marked 
out for himself, Egypt, fenced as it was with waterless deserts 
and almost harbourless coasts, and at the same time rich 
exceedingly, opening on the Mediterranean, and suited to 
become one of the world's great highways. But for the most 
part the new settlement was a confirmation of the stahts quo ; 
nearly all the existing satraps were left in possession, the 
only new appointments which we need remark here being that 
of Eumenes, Alexander's Greek secretary, to Cappadocia, that 
of Pithon the son of Crateuas to Media, and that of Lysimachus 
to Thrace. 

Among the notable figures of the great assemblage in 
Babylon that summer of 323 was one which commands our 
special attention in this book — a robust young officer of good 
Macedonian birth, of about an age with the dead King, who 
had come to win honour under Alexander, as his father 
Antiochus before him had won honour under Philip. This 


young man's name was Seleucus. He had accompanied the 
King at his first setting out into Asia in 334. In the Indian 
campaign of 326 he had been advanced to a high command. 
Services for us unrecorded among the hills of Afghanistan and 
Bokhara had doubtless disclosed to the quick eye of Alexander 
a substantial ability in this lieutenant of his. He was com- 
mander of the Royal Hypas'pistai, and attached to the King's 
staff. At the crossing of the Hydaspes one boat carried 
Alexander, Ptolemy, Perdiccas, Lysimachus and Seleucus — a 
suggestive moment, if the later history of these five men is 
considered — and in the battle with the Paurava king, which 
followed, Seleucus fought at the head of his command.^ 

He is next heard of two years later (324) at the great 
marriage festival in Susa, when Alexander, on his return from 
India, took to wife the daughter of Darius, and caused his 
generals to marry each an Iranian princess.^ And the bride 
allotted to Seleucus shows how high a place the young 
commander of hypaspistai held in the circle about the King. 
Among the most strenuous opponents of the advance of 
Alexander had been two great lords of Further Iran, Spitamenes 
and Oxyartes. When Alexander captured the rock-castle of 
Oxyartes the family of this chief had fallen into his hands. 
Oxyartes had then made his peace. His confederate, Spita- 
menes, had already been killed. The daughter of Oxyartes, 
Ptoxane, was Alexander's chief queen ; the daughter of 
Spitamenes, Apama, was given at Susa to Seleucus. 

It has been remarked as curious that of the eight or nine 
Persian princesses mentioned in this connexion only two 
reappear later on.^ One of these exceptions, however, is 
Apama. There can be no question that her marriage with 
Seleucus was a real thing. She is the mother of his successor, 
and her husband founded three cities, according to Appian, 
bearing her name.* The Seleucid dynasty, while one of its 

^ See Appendix A. ^ Arr. Anah. vii. 4. 

' Professor J. P. Mahaffy, Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 34. He suggests that 
" the whole affair was considered as a huge joke as soon as Alexander was dead." 
But it is fair to remember that of the eight bridegrooms five disappear very soon 
from the scenes. 

■* App. Syr. 57. It does not contradict this statement that there were 
many more than three Apameas. For of some of them tradition expressly 


roots is in Macedonia, has the other in the ancient families of 
Eastern Iran. 

Seleucus was not one of the principal actors in the events 
of the next ten years. But among the secondary figures he 
plays a part which now and again arrests our attention. Even 
did he not, it would be necessary to review in a general way 
the course of these events in order to understand the situa- 
tion when the time comes for Seleucus to step forward as 
protagonist. The first thing that strikes us when we take up 
a historian of this epoch is that the history of the world seems 
to have reduced itself to a history of the Macedonian army 
and its chiefs. But already in 323 two episodes give a sign 
that the predominance of the Macedonian army is to suffer 
reduction, that the elements of the old world it has supplanted 
will perhaps succeed in reasserting themselves, The Empire of 
Alexander suppressed the old barbarian East, and it suppressed 
the old free Hellas. At his death the former does not as yet 
stir ; there are no immediate attempts on the part of the 
Oriental peoples to shake off the Macedonian yoke. But both 
in East and West the Hellenes think they have their freedom 
back again. In Greece itself Athens calls the states to arms, 
and we have the Lamian war, or, as the Greeks themselves 
called it, the Hellenic war. In the far East the Hellenes 
whom Alexander transported en masse to Bactria determine to 
renew the enterprise of Xenophon and march home across 
Asia. A great body of them, over 20,000 foot and 3000 
horse, breaks away. Both these movements the Macedonian 
chiefs are still able to repress. Athens and her allies are 
crushed next year (322) by Antipater and Craterus. The 
Bactrian Greeks are met by Pithon, the new satrap of Media, 
and, by the Eegent's orders, annihilated.^ One revolt the 
Macedonians fail to suppress, that of Ehodes, which, on the 
news of Alexander's death, expels the Macedonian garrison^ 

asserts that tliey were foumied by Antiocliiis I, the son of Apama. There are, 
it is noteworthy, exactly three Apameas of which it is definitely stated that 
they were founded by Seleucus — (1) Apamea in Syria on the Axius (Orontes) ; 
(2) Apamea, "condita a Seleuco rege inter Cilieiam, Cappadoeiam, Cataoniani, 
Armenian! " (Plin. Nat. Hist. v. § 127); and (3) Apamea on the Euphrates 
zeugwa, mod. Birejik (Plin. Nat. Hist. v. § 86}. 

^ Diod. xviii. 7. '"' Ibid. 8. 


and begins to stand out as a free Greek state able to deal on 
equal terms with the Macedonian world-rulers. 

The compromise arrived at by the cavalry and infantry 
took effect. Eoxane was duly delivered of a son — King 
Alexander from the womb. But it was not loner before 


troubles began. It soon became apparent that the predominant 
position of Perdiccas was more than the other Macedonian 
chiefs would endure. Before eighteen months from the 
death of Alexander were out, two antagonistic parties had 
defined themselves in the realm. On the one hand Perdiccas 
represented the central authority ; the simpleton and the baby, 
who were called Kings, were in his keeping. Olympias, the 
mother of Alexander, supported him with the whole strength 
of her influence. The cause of the royal house was in fact 
bound up with that of Perdiccas. Leagued against him were 
most of the other Macedonian chiefs. The soul of the opposi- 
tion was Antigonus, the satrap of Phrygia, but the party 
included Antipater, Philip's old general, who had commanded 
in Macedonia since Alexander left it, and had just suppressed 
the rising of the Greek states ; it also included Craterus, one of 
the chiefs most popular with the Macedonian soldiery, and 
Ptolemy, the satrap of Egypt. These chiefs did not professedly 
oppose the royal authority, but Perdiccas only ; their action 
was none the less bent in effect against any central authority 
whatever. Even among those who remained at the side of 
the Eegent there were many whose hearts, as the event 
showed, were with the opposition. Of the great men of the 
realm only one beside Perdiccas was earnest in the royal cause, 
Eumenes of Cardia, Alexander's chief secretary, who had been 
given the satrapy of Cappadocia. His invidious position as a 
Greek among the Macedonian nobles made his chances in a 
general scramble poor ; for him all depended on the authority 
of the Kings being maintained. 

In 321 the antagonism came to open war. The casus 
belli, as far as Antigonus was concerned, was his refusal to 
obey the Eegent's summons, followed by his flight to Mace- 
donia, where Antipater and Craterus openly espoused his 
quarrel. With Ptolemy the casus helli was his seizure of the 
body of Alexander, a fetich which gave immense prestige to 


its possessor, Antigonus, Antipater and Cratenis took the 
offensive by crossing from Macedonia into Asia Minor ; 
Ptolemy remained on the defensive in Egypt. To crush this 
double rebellion the Eegent divided his forces. Eumenes was 
left in Asia Minor to drive back the invaders. Perdiccas 
himself, with the Kings, marched upon Egypt. Those of the 
Macedonian chiefs who still obeyed him, but were too powerful 
to be safe, he kept by his side under observation. He had 
tried the policy of removing possible rivals to a distance ! 

And Seleucus, whom we last saw as a young man of 
brilliant prospects in Babylon — what line was he taking 
during these first years of anarchy that followed Alexander's 
death ? In the settlement which had given so many of his 
fellow-chiefs a portion of the conquered lands he had received 
no province. He had been given instead a high command in 
the imperial army ^ under the Eegent. It can hardly be that, 
had he wished it, he could not have secured a province like 
the rest. Lysimachus, who had got Thrace, was perhaps 
younger than he. Many of the satraps in possession were 
not persons of sufficient importance to help giving place, should 
a young man like Seleucus press his claims. It must be that 
the high command which he took seemed to him more 
advantageous than a provincial governorship. It was certainly 
a more splendid office, if the authority of the Kings, of the 
Eegent, held. Yes, there we have it ; he had laid his plans 
for the continuance of the Empire, he had thrown in his lot 
with the Eegent, he had missed his chance in the settlement 
of 323. 

But that was two years ago, and if he had not then 
shown the same intelligent anticipation of events as Ptolemy 
he had been learning since then. He accompanied the 
Eegent in the expedition against Egypt. Perhaps he was 
among those whom Perdiccas considered dangerous. Pithon, 
the satrap of Media, went too, and Antigenes, who commanded 
the Silver Shields, the Macedonian foot-guards. The campaign 
was to prove an object-lesson of another sort than any the 
Eegent intended. The contrast was to be driven home to 
Seleucus between his own position, bound as he was by his 

^ See Appendix B. 


office to perpetual subordination to the central power, and 
that of Ptolemy, who demonstrated his ability on a wisely- 
chosen and wisely-prepared ground to hold his independence 
against all attacks. Three times Perdiccas made an attempt 
to cross the arm of the Nile which separated Egypt from the 
desert, each time with enormous loss. His army was soon 
completely demoralized ; numbers went over to Ptolemy ; those 
who did not looked askance at their leader. In this predicament 
the temper of the unhappy man passed beyond his control. 
His relations with the Macedonian chiefs whom he had gathered 
about him became embittered. It was the last straw. Seeing 
that his cause was a lost one, and repelled by his demeanour, the 
Macedonian chiefs quickly agreed to put an end to an im- 
possible situation. Pithon, the satrap of Media, and about a 
hundred more officers openly mutinied. Seleucus took his stand 
with the winning side. And he followed up his choice with 
remorselessly energetic action. He himself led the body of cavalry 
officers who broke into the Eegent's tent. The men of the body- 
guard joined them,^ and Antigenes, their commander, himself 
dealt Perdiccas the first blow.^ Then the mass of his assailants 
flung themselves upon him and ended the work.^ The army 
at once made its peace with Ptolemy, and returned with the 
Kings to join the forces of Antipater and Antigonus which 
were advancing from the North. Pithon and another chief 
called Arrhidaeus assumed the command of the army and 
the guardianship of the Kings. 

Craterus, the popular general, who had left Macedonia 
with Antipater, was now no more. His division had been 
signally defeated by Eumenes, and he himself had fallen 
(May 321). But this victory of Eumenes did not make him 
strong enough to arrest Antipater, who traversed Asia Minor 
by land, or Antigonus, who moved along its coasts by sea. 
Antipater found the army, which had been that of Perdiccas, 
encamped at Triparadisus in Northern Syria,'* 

^ vwb rQv cunaTocpvKaKwv, Paus. i. 6, 3 ; cf. Just. xiv. 4, 11. 

2 Diod. xviii. 39, 6 ; Arr. Ta /xer' 'AXe|. 35. 

^ Diod. xviii. 36 ; Arr. Ta fj-er' 'AX^f. 28 ; Strabo xvii. 794 ; Seleucus is men- 
tioned with Antigenes, Nepos, Eum. 5, 1. 

* Diod. xviii. 39, 1. The site of Triparadisus, the "Three Parks," is un- 
certain. It has been supposed to be the same as the Paradisus of Strabo xvi. 


The Macedonian infantry was still in a chafed and 
suspicious mood. In the murder of Perdiccas its part seems 
to have been mainly passive ; it was the nobles and the 
cavalry who had acted over its head. And although it had 
acquiesced in the change of command, it could not help 
feeling it was somehow being got the better of by its leaders. 
It responded readily to Eurydice, the ambitious wife of 
Philip Arrhidaeus, when she began to complain that Pithon 
was encroaching upon the rights of its idol, the poor half- 
witted King. It was pacified somehow by Pithon and 
Arrhidaeus resigning the regency ; they continued only to 
exercise their powers till Antipater should come, whom the 
army forthwith elected Eegent in their place. Antipater, the 
great representative of the old days of Philip, would put 
everything right. 

But now that Antipater was come, the result was that he 
too fell foul of the Macedonian soldiery. It was a question 
of money, which Alexander had promised, and which Antipater 
either would or could not immediately pay. Eurydice and 
the adherents of Perdiccas worked them up into a fury. 
The army was encamped on the banks of a river. On the 
other side lay the forces which Antipater had brought from 
Macedonia. The allegiance of these new recruits was safe 
enough, but the grand army, which included the veterans 
who had conquered the world, which had chosen the Kings 
and considered itself the sovereign disposer of the Empire, 
was in open mutiny. When Antipater crossed over to 
reason with them he was received with stones. Two men 
confronted the angry mob and saved him. One was, like 
himself, a general of Philip's time, Antigonus, the satrap of 
Phrygia, the other belonged to the new generation, and stood 
in the brilliance of youth and military prestige, Seleucus, the 

756 ; Plin. N.H. v. 19 ; Ptolemy v. 15, 20, and Stephen of Byzantium, near 
the sources of the Orontes. P. Perdrizet {Revue archeol. Z'^^ serie, xxxii. (1898), 
p. 34 f. ) identifies it with Riblah (mod. Rableh), whicli figures in the Old 
Testament as the gateway into Southern Syria from the north. This identifica- 
tion is disputed by R. Dussaud (Eeinie arcMol. 3""^ serie, xxxiii. (1898), p. 113f.), 
who places it at Jusiya. The difference of view is not very important since the 
distance between Jusiya and Riblah is said to be " une demi-heure de cheval 
au pas." 


commander of the horse. These two had influence enough 
to hold the attention of the angry multitude whilst Antipater 
fled over the bridge to his own camp. There the officers of 
the cavalry joined him, and before the united will of their 
hereditary leaders the infantry shrank grumbling into sub- 
mission.^ The accession of Antipater to the regency brought 
with it, as the accession of Perdiccas had done, a resettlement 
of the dignities of the Empire. The functions which had 
been united in Perdiccas were divided between Antipater, 
who became guardian of the Kings, and Antigonus, who was 
made commander-in-chief of all the Macedonian forces in 
Asia, with the task of crushing Eumenes and the rest of the 
old royalist party. Antigonus continued, of course, to hold 
his original satrapy of Phrygia, to which this new general 
authority was superadded. Various changes were at the 
same time made in the other satrapies. The value of a 
territorial base had become far more evident than it had 
been three years before. Pithon went back to Media ; 
Arrhidaeus got Hellespontine Phrygia. To Seleucus the 
settlement of Triparadisus brought back the chance which he 
had missed at the settlement of Babylon. The part he had 
lately taken in saving Antipater's life put him in a strong 
position. There were probably few satrapies he might not 
now have had for the asking. His choice shows to what 
purpose he had studied the example of Ptolemy. Eesigning 
his command of the " Companion " cavalry to Cassander, the 
son of Antipater, he set out to govern the province which, 
of all parts of the Empire, had most features in common with 
Egypt, the province of Babylonia. 

In view of the immense importance of Babylonia among 
the provinces, it is at first surprising to find it assigned in the 
settlement after Alexander's death to any but one of the 
greatest chiefs. It had been given to a certain Archon of 
Pella.2 The explanation is surely that Babylon was to be the 
seat of the Eegent's government, and Perdiccas did not want 

^ Diod. xviii. 39 ; Arrian, Td tier 'AXe|. 30 f. ; Polyaen. iv. 6, 4. 

- Diod. xviii. 3, 3 ; Just. xiii. 4, 23 ; Arr. Ind. 18, 3. Mazaeus died in 328, 
and Alexander had appointed Stamcnes to succeed him. Whether Stamenes 
was also dead in 323 or simply superseded by Archon we do not know. 


any too powerful chief in his immediate neighbourhood. The 
satrap of Babylonia must be a mere subordinate even in his 
own capital, Archou did not relish his circumstances if we 
may judge by the fact that he had ranged himself two years 
later with the opposition to Perdiccas, or Perdiccas, at any 
rate, believed that he had done so. The Ptegent — then 
in Cilicia on his way from Asia Minor to Egypt — sent one of 
the officers on whom he could depend, Docimus, to supersede 
liim; the ex -satrap was to become merely collector of the 
provincial revenue. Archon tried to hold his province by 
force of arms. The Ptegent's emissary, however, was joined by 
a portion of the native population, and in an engagement 
which took place Archon fell mortally wounded. After this 
Babylon received Docimus with open arms, who held it for 
Perdiccas, till a few months later the situation was suddenly 
transformed. The Eegent lay, struck through with many 
wounds, on the banks of the Nile, and the opposition had 
triumphed. It could not be expected that Docimus would be 
left in possession. Babylonia was transferred by the chiefs at 
Triparadisus to Seleucus.^ 

What ensued at this juncture between Docimus and 
Seleucus we do not know.^ Next year Seleucus was in posses- 
sion of Babylon, and Docimus, with others of the late Eegent's 
partisans, had taken to the Pisidian hills.^ The position of the 
satrap of Babylonia had gained in importance by the new 
arrangements. He was no longer overshadowed by the 
imperial court. The two chiefs who had succeeded to the 
power of Perdiccas had one his seat in Macedonia and the 
other in Celaenae (Phrygia). Seleucus was now master in the 
house of Nebuchadnezzar. On the same terraces where 
Nebuchadnezzar had walked three centuries before and said, 
" Is not this great Babylon which I have built for the royal 
dwelling-place by the might of my power and for the glory of 
my majesty ? " the young Macedonian now walked as lord, and 

^ For Docimus and Babylonia see Arrian, Td ner 'AX^f. frag. Reitzenstein 
{Breslauer Philologischc Abhandhcngen, vol. iii.). 

2 " Principio Babyloiia cepit" (Justin xv. 4, 11), which Baunistark refers to 
iu this connexion {Pauly- Wissowa, art. " Babylon "), describes the capture of 
Babylon in 31 2. 

^ Diod. xviii. 44. 


looked over t^e same Babylon spreading away to the south, as 
over his own domain. 

Sources. — Diodorus xviii. is the main authority for this period. It is 
supplemented by Arrian, To, fxeTo. 'AX^^avSpov (of which we have the 
abstract of Photius, given in the Didot edition of Arrian, Paris, 1846, 
and the Reitzenstein fragment) ; Justin xiii. ; Plutarch, Eum.; Nepos, 
Eum. ; Curtius x. 5, 7 f. ; Dexippus (F.H.G. iii. p. 666 f.), and incidental 
notices elsewhere, which will be found in the works of Droysen and Niese. 
Nearly all our information is probably derived in the last resort from the 
contemporary historian, Hieronymus of Cardia. 



Babylonia, possessing so many features in common with Egypt, 
differed in one respect, both to its advantage and its dis- 
advantage — in its central position. By the Euphrates and 
Northern Syria it was in touch with the Mediterranean and 
the West, while a few days' journey across the plain separated 
the Tigris on the east from the mountain-wall behind which 
rose the plateau of Iran — Iran, where the face of the world 
and the ways of men were far other than by the waters of 
Babvlon. If one had it in one's heart to rule the whole 
Empire of Alexander, Babylon was a better seat of government 
than Egypt ; if, on the other hand, the ruler of Babylonia was 
not strong enough to aspire to more than independence, he 
was certain to be more entangled in the affairs of his 
neighbours than the ruler of Egypt. Seleucus would watch 
with anxiety the course of events both in the lands about the 
Mediterranean, where the star of Antigonus seemed in the 
ascendant, and in Iran, where Macedonian chiefs, Macedonian 
and Greek armies, were still a problematic element. 

The eastern satraps included two chiefs of the first rank, 
Pithon and Peucestas. Both had belonged to that inner circle 
of eight, the somatophy lakes, who stood closest to the late King. 
These two men were the cardinal personalities at this moment 
in Iran. 

Pithon the son of Crateuas, of Alcomenae in Eordaea,^ had 
obtained the satrapy of Media at the partition made in Babylon 
after Alexander's death. None of those who went to their 

1 AiT. l7uL 18, 6 ; Anab. vi. 28, i. 

EVENTS IN THE EAST, 321-316 41 

several provinces seems to have carried with him a heart more 
full of magnificent projects ; none realized more quickly the 
openings to individual ambition in the new state of things. 
His province was the most important in Iran. In Ecbatana 
the first Iranian kingdom had had its seat. Under the 
Achaemenians it still continued to be one of the great capitals 
of the Empire, the summer residence of the Persian kings. 
Media was reckoned the richest of all the Iranian provinces, 
as is shown by the figure at which Darius assessed it.^ Its 
upland plains were excellent pasture ; they nourished in- 
numerable herds of horses, the best in the world. Its hills 
were tenanted by hardy tribes, the ancestors of the modern 
Kurds, from whom the ruler of Media could draw immense 
material of fighting men.- To an ambitious man the possession 
of Media opened wide possibilities. 

The governor who sat in the golden palace of Ecbatana 
already held a sort of primacy among the satraps of Iran. To 
change that to an absolute lordship of Iran, and from that 
again step — to what ? to the throne of Alexander ? Thoughts 
such as these seem to have danced before the mind of Pithon. 
His first opportunity had come soon after the death of 
Alexander in the insurrection of the Greeks planted in the Far 
East. Not only had Pithon been charged by the Piegent 
Perdiccas with the quelling of the revolt, but large accessions 
had been sent to his troops, and he had been empowered to 
call upon the other satraps of Iran for contingents. It was 
then that Pithon had formed the design of Avinning the revolted 
Greeks to his own standard — a design which was only 
frustrated by the astuteness of the Piegent in giving up the 
mutineers as a prey to the Macedonians.^ 

Thenceforward the Ee^ent seems to have thought it 
prudent to keep Pithon in his own entourage — a change in 
Pithon's position which accounts for his deserting to Ptolemy 
in 321.** After the murder of Perdiccas, Pithon becomes 
joint-regent of the Empire with Arrhidaeus. Then after the 
Partition of Triparadisus, while Seleucus goes to take possession 
of Babylonia, Pithon returns with increased prestige to Media. 

' Hdt. iii. 92. - Polyb. v. 44 ; Strabo xi. 525. 

2 Diod. xviii. 7. * Diod. xviii, 36. 


The other great satrap in the East was Peucestas of 
Mieza in Macedonia. Before he had been added as eighth to 
the seven somatophylaJces he had carried before Alexander the 
sacred shield taken from the temple of Athena at Troy/ and 
had warded Alexander's body with his own in the taking of 
the Mallian city (mod. Multan). It was from Alexander 
himself that he had received his satrapy, Persis, the country- 
of the ruling tribe among the Iranians, with Pasargadae, the 
cradle of the Achaemenian house, and Persepolis, the royal city. 
Peucestas had thrown himself heartily into that scheme so dear 
to Alexander's heart of fusing the Macedonian and Persian 
aristocracies. He had, in dress, in language, in deportment, 
done all he could to show himself to the people of his 
province as one of themselves.^ The death of Alexander 
found him with a well-rooted power. 

The ambition of Pithon was of the kind that cannot wait 
for the fruit to ripen. The news suddenly flew through Iran 
that he had seized the adjoining province of Parthia. Philip, 
the satrap appointed at Triparadisus, he had made away with 
and replaced by his own brother Eudamus. The other satraps 
all felt their own seats threatened, and came quickly to an 
understanding among themselves, with a view to resisting 
Pithon's aggression. This movement against Pithon gave 
Peucestas his opportunity to rise to a pre-eminent position 
in Iran by a less invidious method than his rival. He had 
but to join the confederate satraps to secure the leadership, 
for amongst them there was no one of equal standing. He 
did so, and was voluntarily recognized as chief. The armies 
of Iran invaded Parthia under his command, and drove Pithon 
out of the province.^ 

Pithon retired at first upon Media, but he soon felt himself 
insecure even there. It was now that he appeared with some 
following in Babylon, and called upon Seleucus to make 
common cause with him and share gains. Here was an 
entanglement in prospect. What the interests of Seleucus 
required was that he should hold aloof from the turmoil till 
he had consolidated his power. But this was hard to do in 

1 Arr. Anah. vi. 9, 3 ; 28, 4. 
2 Ihid. 30. ^ Diod. xix. 14. 

EVENTS IN THE EAST, 321-316 43 

Babylon. He might refuse Pithon's suggestion, but fresh 
complications already loomed in sight. The disturbances in 
the West were about to become intermingled with those 
of Iran. 

The death of Perdiccas had left his party, the royalist 
party, who were for holding the Empire together under the 
xjentral authority of the royal house, apparently doomed. 
Eumenes, its one remaining champion of any account, was 
left isola,ted in Asia Minor. And in the year following the 
settlement of Triparadisus, Antigonus had conducted the war 
against Eumenes w^ith great success, and shut him up in the 
Cappadocian fortress of Nora (320). Then unexpectedly the 
prospects of the royalist party improved. In 319 Antipater, 
the Eegent, died. He bequeathed his great office to a chief 
called Polyperchon. It was this transference of the supreme 
authority which brought about a revival of the royalist cause ; 
for, in the first place, Antigonus now began to take so master- 
ful and independent a line in Asia Minor that many who had 
supported him from fear of Perdiccas came to fear Antigonus 
no less. Arrhidaeus, for instance, the satrap of Hellespontine 
Phrygia, and Clitus, the satrap of Lydia, were soon his 
enemies, and thereby allies of Eumenes and the royalists. 
In the second place, the son of Antipater, Cassander, had 
expected to succeed to his father's office, and threw himself 
into violent opposition to the new Eegent. Antigonus and he 
made common cause. As a consequence, Polyperchon was 
driven to ally himself with the queen-mother Olympias, whose 
authority the royalists maintained. The royalists, instead of 
being hunted outlaws, now had the Eegent of the Empire 
himself on their side. 

The effect of these changes was rapidly seen in Asia 
Minor. The siege of Nora was raised ; Eumenes was again 
recognized by the supreme authority in Macedonia as com- 
mander-in-chief of Asia, and the picked corps of Macedonian 
veterans, the Silver Shields, commanded by Antigen es and 
Teutamus, put themselves under his orders. He also seized 
by royal warrant the treasures which had been transferred 
from Susa to Cyinda in Cilicia. In 318 he was in Phoenicia 
preparing a fleet to drive the party of Antigonus from the sea. 


But the new hopes of the royalists were dashed by an 
untoward event — the annihilation by Antigonus of the fleet 
of Clitus in the Bosphorus. This entirely upset the plans of 
Eumenes, and even made his position in Phoenicia, between 
Antigonus and Ptolemy, insecure. That wonderful man, 
however, whom no reverse found at the end of his resources, 
turned his eyes to another field, in which he could strike a' 
telling blow. He saw that the situation in Iran, which had 
been created by the confederation against Pithon, might be 
turned to account. The confederate satraps had in effect 
identified their interests with those of the royalist party. 
The smaller chiefs knew that they would lose far less by 
being to some extent subject to a central authority than if 
they were severally swallowed up by Antigonus or Pithon. 
Accordingly, about the time of the battle in Parthia, Eumenes 
had moved eastwards, and crossed the Euphrates apparently 
without opposition. Amphimachus, the satrap of Mesopotamia, 
was an ally.^ His winter-quarters (318-317) Eumenes took 
up within the satrapy of Seleucus, in some villages which 
went by the name of the Villages of the Carians (Kapcov 
Kdofiai).^ So much for any hopes Seleucus may have nursed 
of keeping the broils from his door ! 

There were no forces in Babylon whom Seleucus dared 
to oppose to the Silver Shields, with Eumenes to command 
them. Eumenes wintered in the villages undisturbed, and 
summoned Seleucus and Pithon by messengers to come to the 
help of the Kings. These chiefs still felt a coalition with 
Eumenes, the detested G-reek, to be impossible, and refused to 
see in him the Kings' representative. But the despatches he 
sent to the confederate satraps met with a favourable reception. 
His post found the united army which had defeated Pithon not 
yet disbanded. Eumenes appointed the neighbourhood of 
Susa as the place where it should meet his own forces in 
the spring. 

The agents of Seleucus and Pithon vainly endeavoured 
during the winter to detach the Silver Shields from their 
allegiance, and with the spring (317) the army of Eumenes 
was on the move. Seleucus soon learnt that he was encamped 

1 Diod. xix. 27, 4. 2 ji^^^i 12, 1. 

EVENTS IN THE EAST, 321-316 45 

on the bank of the Tigris, only 34 miles from Babylon. 
Eiimenes had, in fact, approached nearer to Babylon than was 
safe ; for he had now exhausted the country between the 
rivers, and could find no more supplies except by crossing to 
the eastern side of the Tigris. And so near to the capital, 
Seleucus had it in his power to make the passage of the river 
next to impossible. But Seleucus, for his part, was by no 
means desirous to have a hostile army, and that including 
the Silver Shields, penned up at his doors. To block the 
march of the army was almost as perilous for him as to allow 
it to go on to Susiana. All would be well could he only 
induce the Silver Shields to desert, and in his extremity he 
desperately clung to this forlorn hope. He sent an embassy 
on the ships which Alexander had built in Babylon just before 
his death to make a last attempt ; but the Silver Shields still 
held by Eumenes. The agents of Seleucus then tried a more 
forcible method of persuasion. They opened an ancient canal, 
which had silted up, and the camp of Eumenes was flooded. 
Eumenes was in an ugly position. The next day his force, 
which was greatly superior to the troops sent by Seleucus, 
seized the punts in which the latter had come, and the best 
part of the army succeeded in crossing. Next day a native 
showed him how the water could be drained off, and when the 
officers of Seleucus saw him set about doing it, they withdrew 
all opposition to his passage. 

Seleucus had never (if the view just given is correct) been 
really anxious to detain him, but the alternative had been to 
allow Eumenes and the satraps to unite. The combined force 
could certainly crush him. To meet this peril Seleucus was 
obliged to call in Antigonus. 

Antigonus was already in Mesopotamia on the track of 
Eumenes when the messengers of Seleucus found him. He 
had, in fact, wintered there, hoping that when spring allowed 
mihtary operations to continue he would be able to come up 
with Eumenes before a junction with the satraps was effected. 
Being too late for this, he was reduced to remain a while 
stationary in Mesopotamia, raising new levies for the approach- 
ing campaign. In the summer of 317 he came at length to 
Babylon, and concerted a plan of operations with Seleucus and 


Pithon. Each furnished contingents. Then the whole force, 
with the three generals, crossed the Tigris, and the new phase 
in the great war of the Successors began. 

It is no part of our purpose to follow its movements. The 
satrap of Babylonia ceased at an early stage to act with the 
main body. The first objective of Antigonus was Susa, and 
this he reached unopposed. A garrison, however, had been 
left by the confederate satraps to hold the fortress and guard 
the treasure. Antigonus, assuming already supreme powers, 
authorized Seleucus to join the Susian satrapy to his own, and 
left him with a detachment to reduce the fortress whilst he 
himself moved to Media. Xenophilus, the commander of the 
garrison, was perhaps only half-hearted in his resistance. At 
any rate we find him a year later still occupying his post as 
guardian of the treasure, but now as the lieutenant of Seleucus. 

Within a year from the day that Antigonus crossed the 
Tigris, the mutual jealousies of the satraps and the treachery 
of the Silver Shields had delivered Eumenes into the hand 
of his enemies. Antigonus put him to death. The royalist 
cause in Asia was thereby extinguished. Antigonus was now 
the dominant person in all the country from the Mediterranean 
to Central Asia. Then the Macedonian grandees, who had 
followed Eumenes so grudgingly, found that with his dis- 
appearance the main prop of their defence was gone. 

Eudamus, not the brother of Pithon, but the murderer of 
King Porus, the man whose 120 elephants had given him 
weight among the confederate satraps, was among the first 
to perish by the word of Antigonus. Antigenes, one of the 
commanders of the Silver Shields, who had been made satrap 
of Susiana at Triparadisus, was burnt alive. But it was not 
his late adversaries only whom the new lord of Asia could not 
tolerate. "With them, if they were unlikely to give trouble in 
the future, there might be reconcilement. It was not the 
having fought in the royalist cause which was the damning 
thing. It was the possession of any power or prestige which 
might menace the new monarchy. 

There was not, for instance, room in the world for both 
Antigonus and Pithon. Antigonus quartered his troops for the 
winter (317-316) in Media, and Pithon quickly set to work in 


secret upon them. Antigonus did not dare to risk an open 
attack upon his supposed ally. He therefore enticed him to a 
friendly conference, and then ordered him to instant execution. 
Lest the possession of Media should lead any one else to 
harbour the same designs as Pithon, Antigonus established a 
double authority there (according to Alexander's system), 
making a native satrap and appointing a Macedonian to 
command the troops. 

After seizing the bullion in the treasuries of Ecbatana and 
stripping the silver tiles from the palace,^ Antigonus moved to 
Persis. Here in the home of the Achaemenian kings he 
purposed to make a fresh settlement of the Eastern satrapies. 
He did not, while a son of Alexander Lived, assume the title 
of King, but in fact he "was King of Asia, and the natives 
received him with royal honours. It would indeed have been 
dangerous to strain his authority in the farther provinces, 
which his arms had never approached, and whose satraps, 
Macedonian and native, were strong in the affection of their 
subjects. The satrap of Aria was replaced by a nominee of 
Antigonus. Amphimachus, the satrap of Mesopotamia, who 
had joined Eumenes, was replaced by a certain Blitor.^ Those 
more remote were allowed to retain their government. 

Peucestas, who, now that Pithon was gone, was the 
most formidable rival of Antigonus in the East, remained 
to be dealt with. A residence in Persis seems to have 
brought home to Antigonus how great the popularity of 
Peucestas with his native subjects was, and how alarming 
his power. He declared him deposed. This at once raised 
a storm. A Persian notable had the boldness to tell Anti- 
gonus to his face that the Persians would obey no one 
else. Antigonus put the man to death, but he thought it 
prudent to use no violence against Peucestas. He rather 
designed to allure him out of the country by splendid promises. 
Perhaps Peucestas believed him ; perhaps he only thought that 
his best chance lay in falling in with whatever Antigonus 
proposed. At any rate, from this time he disappears without 
a trace from history. A nominee of Antigonus ruled Persis 
with a strong hand in his stead. 

^ Polyb. X. 27, 11. - App. Syr. 53. 


The time was now come for Antigonus to turn his face 
again to the West. He set out by way of Susiana. On 
crossing the Pasitigris he was met by Xenophilus, the warden 
of the city of Susa. Xenophilus explained that Seleucus, the 
governor of the country, had ordered him to place the royal 
treasures at Antigonus' disposal. And now Antigonus laid his 
hands upon the fabulous riches of " Shushan the palace." The 
climbing vine of gold, which had been in the imagination of 
the Greeks what the Peacock Throne of the Moguls was to 
our fathers, became his. When he left Susa the 5000 talents 
he brought from Ecbatana had swelled to 25,000. 

Seleucus was the last man left east of the Euphrates whom 
Antigonus could regard as a rival. The lessons of the fate of 
Pithon and Peucestas had not been lost upon the satrap of 
Babylonia. He must have felt bitterly the difference between, 
his position and that of Ptolemy in Egypt. He had done all 
in his power to keep his province unembroiled, and now he 
must ask himself whether he was to keep it at all. To hold 
it by force against Antigonus was out of the question. His 
one chance lay in conciliating the conqueror ; and if he 
failed — well, there was nothing for it but to throw up the 
game and save his life at least for more fortunate times. 

The army of Antigonus, with its immense train of waggons 
and camels bearing the spoils of the East, moved from Susa 
to Babylon. But an ominous indication of the mood of 
Antigonus preceded his departure. The province of Susiana, 
which in the stress of the war he had assigned to Seleucus, he 
now took away again and put under a native. At Babylon, 
Seleucus received him and his forces with every form of 
observance and sumptuous entertainment which might allay 
his suspicions. But he was on the alert for the least sign of 
hostility on the part of Antigonus in order to escape the fate 
of Pithon. He had not long to wait. Antigonus, alleging that 
some act of his was a breach of order, called for an account of 
his administration. Seleucus could not, without surrendering 
all claim to independence, comply. He allowed a discussion 
to run on for several days, and then, whilst Antigonus was no 
doubt expecting something which might be a colourable pretext 
for arrest, he was suddenly gone. He was riding for his life 

EVENTS IN THE EAST, 321-316 49 

with fifty horsemen to Egypt — the one secure place ; Ptolemy 
had a reputation for generosity. Perhaps he reflected that the 
very man he was now flying from had himself fled in like 
manner from Perdiccas. 

Sources. — Diod. xix. ; Plutarch, Eimi. ; Nepos, Eiim. ; App. 8\jr. 




Seven years had passed since the death of Alexander, and 
Seleucus found himself at the end of them a landless fugitive. 
As a whole, these years had served to reduce the situation to 
a much simpler form. The old royal house of Macedonia was 
become a practically negligible quantity, although the boy 
Alexander still lived with the name of King. For in the 
West also, the years 317 and 316 had sealed the fate of the 
royalist cause. First, as a consequence of the dis^astrous 
battle in the Bosphorus, Greece had been for the most part 
in 317 wrested from the Eegent Polyperchon by Cassander, 
Then came a split in the royalist party itself, a natural result 
of the double kingship. The Kings, the child and the 
simpleton, were cyphers, but Olympias, the grandmother of the 
little Alexander, and Eurydice, the wife of Philip, stood in 
fierce opposition. The Eegent had lent himself to the designs 
of Olympias, and in 317 Philip and Eurydice were both made 
away with. The nominal kingship was now vested in 
Alexander alone. Before 317 was out Cassander attacked 
Macedonia itself. The murder of Philip and Eurydice had 
made the country hostile to Olympias and Polyperchon. 
When the winter fell, the Eegent was pinned by Cassander's 
forces in Azorus, and Cassander was besieging the royal family 
in Pydna. In the spring of 316 Pydna fell. Cassander held 
the King in his hands. He soon made himself master of 
Macedonia. Olympias was put to death. 

It was not only through the suppression of the royal house 
that the situation was simplified. Out of the struggle of the 



Macedonian chiefs four now emerged as the fittest or the 
most fortunate. The rest had either disappeared, like 
Perdiccas and Eumenes, Pithon and Peucestas, or had acquiesced 
in subordination to one of the four, as the new satraps in the 
East to Antigonus, and Seleucus to Ptolemy. And of these 
four, Antigonus held a position which overshadowed all the 
rest. His power extended over all Asia from the Mediterranean 
to Khorassan, whilst of the other three Ptolemy held only 
Egypt and Southern Syria, Cassander had a newly-grounded 
and precarious power in Macedonia, and Lysimachus maintained 
his independence in the semi-barbarous country of Thrace. 

It was a curious revolution in the position of Antigonus 
that he now found himself practically the successor of 
Perdiccas. So long as the principle of one central government 
for the Empire had meant an authority over his head, his 
ambition had set him among its opponents ; his ambition, 
mounting higher, now made him the champion of that principle, 
but with the difference that the central government should be 
his own. Accordingly he found himself before long at war 
with his old allies, and allied with many of his old enemies, 
the wreck of the royalist party. The history of the next 
fourteen years (315-301) is the long fight of Antigonus for 

Before Antigonus returned to the "West in 315 common 
action had been determined on by Ptolemy, Cassander and 
Lysimachus. Our authority assigns a great part to Seleucus 
in prompting this alliance, but the other three chiefs probably 
needed little instruction to be on their guard against Antigonus.^ 
Their ambassadors met Antigonus in the spring of 315 in 
Northern Syria, and laid before him the demands which they 
made as his allies in the late war against the royalists. These 
included a partition of the conquered territory in Asia, 
Seleucus being restored to Babylonia, and of the captured 
treasure. Antigonus repulsed these demands with scorn. 
Then either side got ready for the battle. The peoples of 
Asia saw the evidence of their monarch's resolution along all 
their highways, the posts fixed at intervals for rapid com- 
munication, the heights crowned with beacons," 

1 Diod. xix. 56. ^ jrj^-^_ 57^ 5^ 


The war with Antigonus, as far as Seleucus was concerned, 
falls into two phases. In the first, 315-312, Seleucus was 
merely a subordinate, " one of the captains " of Ptolemy, as 
the book of Daniel describes him.^ We hear of him in 
command of the Ptolemaic fleet, which in 315 menaces the 
coast of Ionia, when Antigonus is set on gaining mastery of 
the sea as a preliminary to an attack on Macedonia.^ Shortly 
afterwards Seleucus is in Cyprus with Ptolemy's brother 
Menelaus, combating the partizans of Antigonus in the 
island.^ He is again in the Aegean the following year (314).^ 
These operations, which form part of a plan of campaign, in 
which Seleucus is not a principal, do not concern us farther. 

Then comes the year 312, the great year of Seleucus, the 
starting-point of the era, which was established by the kings 
of his line in the East, and was still used as the " year of the 
G-reeks " long after his line had passed away. The spring of 
that year found Antigonus in Asia Minor, believing that the 
way to Europe was at last open. To secure himseK against 
a flank attack from Egypt, his son Demetrius, the brilliant, 
dissolute man to whose career the rather hackneyed metaphor 
of a meteor can be applied with peculiar appropriateness, had 
been left with an army to hold Cilicia and Syria. Southern 
Syria (Palestine), as well as ISTorthern, was occupied at this 
moment by the forces of Antigonus, the troops of Ptolemy 
having been expelled in 315 at the outbreak of the war. It 
was determined in the council of Ptolemy that the time was 
ripe for a forward movement. Seleucus, according to our 
account, was the main advocate of this step.^ A large army, 
led by Ptolemy and Seleucus, moved across the desert upon 
Palestine. They were met at the threshold of the country, 
near Gaza, by Demetrius. A decisive battle — one of the 
great battles of the time — took place. Demetrius was com- 
pletely beaten. Syria was lost for the time to Antigonus. 
His movement upon Macedonia was arrested; his whole 
scheme of operations had to be modified. It was the severest 

^ Ch. 11, 5. "The king of the south (Ptolemy) shall be strong ; but as for 
one of his captains, he shall become stronger than he." 

2 Diod. xix. 58, 5 ; 60, 4. ^ Ibid. 62, 4 f. 

4 Ibid. 68, 3 f. 5 7j^^ sO, 3. 


blow that had been dealt him since the beginning of the 

But its ultimate consequences were to prove more 
momentous than its immediate effect. The opportunity of 
Seleucus was now come, and he sprang swiftly. Immediately 
Lfter the battle he had received from Ptolemy, who favoured 
his enterprise, a body of 800 foot and 200 horse, and with 
these he set out to recover his old province of Babylonia. 
The little company moved along the road which struck the 
Euphrates in Northern Syria. Even for the recovery of one 
province the force seemed ridiculously small. We are told 
of the companions of Seleucus that on the way their hearts 
misgave them. They contrasted themselves with the great 
power against which they were going. But Seleucus was not 
to be discouraged. The history of those eventful days, as it 
stood in the author followed by Diodorus,' narrated by those 
who looked back upon them in the light of subsequent 
triumphs, is transfigured by a prophetic halo. Seleucus was 
sure of his destiny. He reminded his followers of the fall of 
the Persian power before the superior science of Alexander ; 
and indeed he was right if he saw upon how insecure founda- 
tions these monarchies maintained by military force alone, 
without the cement of nationality, of which the East has seen 
so many, do really rest. The narrator makes him further 
sustain his followers' courage by an oracle of the Didymaean 
Apollo, which had hailed him King, and by a vision of 
Alexander. " He also set before them how all that is held 
in honour and admiration among men is achieved by labours 
and hazards." -^ It is an occasion when some idealizing touches 
are justified. In this form, indeed, did those days actually 
live in the minds of men. 

The party of Seleucus crossed the Euphrates into Meso- 
potamia and appeared at Carrhae, an old town on the high 
road between Syria and Babylon where a colony of Macedonian 
soldiers was settled. Some of these were ready at once to join 
a commander of the reputation of Seleucus, and the rest were 
not numerous enough to offer resistance. With these reinforce- 
ments Seleucus traversed the length of Mesopotamia and 

1 Diod. xix. 90. 


entered Babylonia. The hopes he had cherished, that the work 
of his previous four years there still stood in the disposition of 
the people, were not found vain. The satrap appointed by 
Antigonus, Pithon the son of Agenor, had been with Demetrius 
at Gaza and fallen on the field.^ The natives flocked to the 
standards of their old governor. One of the Macedonian 
officials came over to him with more than 1000 men. The 
partizans of Antigonus were overborne by the popular movement, 
and shut themselves up under a commander called Diphilus in 
one of the palace-citadels of Babylon. Here they still held as 
hostages those who had formed the adherents and retinue of 
Seleucus in his governorship.^ But Seleucus carried the place 
by assault and rescued all who belonged to him. 

This loas the moment which the Seleucid kings regarded as 
the hirthday of their Empire. 

Seleucus ruled once more in Babylon. But he must 
expect ere long to have his possession challenged ; and he set 
earnestly to work to form a force of both arms and to confirm 
his influence with the natives and resident Macedonians. 
Antigonus personally was busy in the "West, but he left the 
command of all the eastern provinces in the hands of the 
satrap of Media, Nicanor, who had succeeded the Mede 
Orontobates.^ Nicanor was soon on his way to Babylon with 
an imposing force, drawn from different regions of Iran, of more 
than 10,000 foot and 7000 horse. To set against him Seleucus 
had no more than 3000 foot and 400 horse. But making up 
for this by mobility, he crossed the Tigris before Nicanor had 
reached it, took him completely by surprise, and routed him. 
Euager, the satrap of Persis, was among those who fell in the 
affray. The army of Nicanor came over in a body to Seleucus. 
Nicanor himself barely made good his escape into the deserts 
with a handful of his staff, and thence reached his satrapy. 

The effect of the battle was immediately to open the 
East to Seleucus. It was seen how insubstantial the hold 

1 Diod. xix. 85, 2. 

^ TO. (f)v\aTT6/j.ei'a awfj-ara tQv iraiduv Kal rQv (f>i\u)v, Diod. xix. 91, 4. The 
walSes of the governor probably correspond to the Traldes /SacrtXiKo/ of the king. 
Cf. Twv Bv/jLivovs iraiduv ifXaj dvo, Diod. xix. 28, 3 ; 90, 1. 

^ Nicanor is called crrpaTTjybs ttjs re Myjdias Kal tCiv dpw aarpaTreMv, Diod. xix. 
100, 3. 


of Antigonus upon the East really was. The Greek and 
Macedonian garrisons by which his nominees had held Media, 
Persis, Susiana, and Babylon were quite ready, if it appeared 
profitable, to exchange his service for that of Seleucus. The 
natives, no doubt, remembered the old governors he had taken 
from them with regret. The satraps of the further provinces 
he had never really subdued.^ Seleucus seems to have annexed 
Susiana almost immediately, and perhaps Persis, whose satrap 
had fallen. Then he advanced upon Media itself, to attack 
Nicanor in his own province. 

Meanwhile in the West, Antigonus, warned by the battle 
of Gaza, had determined to leave Ptolemy unassailed no longer. 
He had reoccupied Palestine, and, as a preliminary to the 
invasion of Egypt, had attempted to reduce the Nabataean 
Arabs, who controlled the road through the desert (311). He 
had met in this with indifferent success, and had just come to 
terms when a dispatch from Nicanor, explaining the desperate 
position of affairs in the East, reached him. Antigonus, even 
with the risk of losing the East, could ill spare troops for any 
long time in view of the complications in the West. But he 
determined to try the effect of one sudden blow at the seat of 
Seleucus' power. He gave 15,000 foot and 4000 horse to 
Demetrius, ordered him to make a flying excursion into 
Babylonia, recover the province, and return as soon as possible, 
Demetrius assembled this force at Damascus, and moved rapidly 
upon Babylonia by way of Mesopotamia.^ 

Seleucus had left in Babylon, to hold command during his 
absence, an officer called Patrocles, no doubt the same person 
of whom we hear later on as his foremost counsellor and the 
explorer of Central Asia, Patrocles learnt that Demetrius 
was coming down on him from Mesopotamia, He knew that 
his forces were too small to risk a battle. But at any rate he 
meant to save them from defeat or seduction, and ordering a 
considerable part of them to take refuge in the deserts to the 
west of the Euphrates or the swamps of the Susian coast, 

^ Niese, i. p. 299, supposes that Seleucus had akeady an understanding with 
these satraps before coming to Babylon. 

- The route across the desert by way of Palmyra is not mentioned, I believe, 
till 41 B.C. (App. B.C. V. 9). Even Seleucus on his way from Gaza to Babylon 
goes as far north as Carrhae, 


he himself moved with a small body about the province to 
observe the enemy. At the same time he kept Seleucus in 
Media continually informed of what took place. 

Demetrius found the city of Babylon evacuated, except the 
two royal palaces which confronted each other across the river. 
Of these he took and looted one, but the other held out for 
some days, and the time allowed him was at an end. He was 
obliged to return with this incomplete result, but he left one 
of his friends with a quarter of his force to go on with the 
siege and hold the province. Before leaving he pillaged the 
country, an act which only served to injure his own cause, so 
that, as Plutarch says, he "left the power of Seleucus firmer 
than ever." ^ 

The incursion of Demetrius was a mere momentary inter- 
ruption in Seleucus' conquest of the East. Nicanor was 
unable to make head against him in Media. Appian says 
that Seleucus " killed the satrap Nicator (sic) in the battle." - 
It may be that Appian had the battle on the Tigris in his 
mind when Nicanor was defeated and fled ; or, of course, 
Nicanor may have given battle again in Media with his 
remaining troops and fallen. 

The ancient authors have allowed us to follow up to this 
point with tolerable completeness the progress of Seleucus, 
the son of Antiochus, towards empire. If the material were 
before us, we should now have to narrate the actual formation 
of the Empire in the East with a fulness proportionate to its 
importance. The observance of such proportions in his 
narrative is, however, impossible to a historian of the Seleucid 
house. He has to take his information as he can get it, and 
it is not always the passages he would most like to know 
about which are lit up for him by the capricious chances of 
the records. On an incident which, according to its relative 
importance, should be disposed of in a sentence he is obliged, 
in order to make his work complete, to spend a page ; about a 
development, to which he would wish to give a chapter, he 
can only get enough information to fill a sentence. We have 
at the point to which we are now come an example of this 
disability. After the return of Demetrius from Babylon in 

^ Plutarch, Bern. 7. ' ^ App. Syr. 55. 


311 Seleucus once more repossessed himself of the province, 
and during the following nine years (311-302) made his 
authority supreme in Iran as well as in the Euphrates valley, 
or, in other words, over all the eastern part of the Empire to 
the Jaxartes and the Indus. This hare fact is almost all that 
can he elicited from the documents. 

It is the war with Antigonus in the West which once 
more draws Seleucus, as king of the East, into the field of 
vision. There the situation was still very much in 302 as 
Seleucus had left it in 312. The most important modification 
was the total extinction of the old royal family of Macedonia 
in the male line. The child Alexander had been murdered by 
Cassander in 311, and Heracles, the illegitimate son of the 
great Alexander, by Polyperchon in 309. Cassander might 
claim to inherit its rights by his wife, Thessalonice, who was 
the sister of Alexander the Great. In 3 6 Antigonus assumed 
the title of King.^ In the following year the other dynasts, 
Ptolemy, Cassander, Lysimachus and Seleucus, followed suit. 
Seleucus had already been " King " to his native subjects. 
Now the Macedonians and Greeks admitted to his presence 
saw him wearing the linen band, the diadem, which had been 
with the old Persian kings the symbol of royalty, and the 
official Greek documents ran in the name of King Seleucus.^ 

We may pause to note that the name of king had no 
territorial reference. These kings are never officially styled 
kings of Egypt or kings of Asia. If they are called so by 
historians, it is merely for the purpose of convenient distinction. 
It connoted rather a personal relation to the Macedonian 
people. Ideally there was one Macedonian Empire as in the 
Middle Ages there was one Eoman Empire.^ But the dignity 
of Macedonian King was borne conjointly or concurrently by 
several chieftains, just as the dignity of Eoman Emperor was 

^ He had already been so called by the Athenians in 307, C. I. Ait. ii. No. 238. 

2 Plutarch, Dem. 18. 

^ " Das Reich Alexanders ist trotz den Teiliingen immer noch als eiu Ganzes 
anzusehen . . . Die Teilungen waren so rascli aufeinander gefolgt, dass sie 
feste Territorien mit sicheren Grenzen und ausgepriigten Eigenheiten nicht 
bilden konnten . . . Jeder der neuen Koiiige hielt sich berechtigt, nach 
Vermiigen und Gelegenheit seinen Teil zu vergrossern, ja selbst das Ganze in 
Anspruch zu nehmen," Niese ii. p.* 123. 


borne concurrently by the Western and the Byzantine prince.^ 
In practice, of course, each of the rivals had to acquiesce in 
the others being kings within a certain territorial sphere. 
But their connexion with that sphere was never as close and 
essential as that of the king of England or the king of France 
with his territory. Ptolemy and Seleucid were to the end 
Macedonian kings who happened to reign in Egypt and in 

Materially, however, the situation in the West had changed 
little since 312. Antigonus still held Asia Minor and Syria 
securely. But his attempts to enlarge his dominion further 
had met with poor success. He had never succeeded in 
reaching Macedonia, and his attack on Egypt in 306 had 
broken down disastrously. He had wrested Cyprus from 
Ptolemy, and he had established a fluctuating influence in 
Greece, but that was the utmost he could do. And during 
the siege of Pthodes by Demetrius, 305-304, the war between 
Antigonus and the other dynasts seems to have languished. 

But it was in itself a momentous change in the general 
situation that the rule of Antigonus beyond the Euphrates had 
been superseded by the rule of Seleucus. It was so much lost 
to Antigonus in resources, and a fourth independent power 
had arisen in his rear. If against his three enemies he had 
been unable to make advance, against four he could not even 
hold his own ground. 

After the failure of his attempt on Rhodes he turned once 
more in 304 to assail Cassander in Greece. During the 
distractions of the last three years his hold on Greece had 
been almost lost. Cassander and his ally, the old Eegent 
Polyperchon, who was now fallen to be a sort of condottiere, 
had restored their influence almost everywhere, except in 
Athens ; and Athens was hard pressed. Demetrius now re- 
turned to Greece, and next year (303), in a victorious campaign, 
swept the hostile forces from the field. The states of Greece 
were federated under the presidency of Antigonus and 
Demetrius against Cassander. 

Such victories were useless. Their immediate effect was 

^ Cf. Plutarch, Bern. 25. Demetrius does not recognize the royalty of the 
rival dynasts. 


to revive into activity the alliance of Cassander, Lysimachus 
and Ptolemy, to which Seleucus now added his strength. 
While Demetrius had been conquering Greece, Antigonus had 
remained on the defensive in Northern Syria. In this central 
region the roads which led to Asia Minor from Egypt and 
from Babylonia converged, so that his position gave Antigonus 
equal opportunities for observing Ptolemy and Seleucus. But 
in the spring of 302 the alliance against him came into play. 
Lysimachus crossed over from Thrace, and, in combination 
with a force sent by Cassander, overran the Western part of 
Asia Minor. When Antigonus marched against him he 
simply retired into a strong position on the coast near 
Heraclea and stood at bay. And in the meantime Antigonus 
had been obliged to leave the roads from Iran and Egypt 
inadequately defended behind him. In such a predicament it 
was of no avail that Demetrius was pressing Cassander hard 
in Thessaly. Antigonus was obliged to call him back to Asia 
and let Greece go. 

During these events in the summer of 302 Seleucus was 
making his way from the Panjab, marching ever westward 
over the immense distances which separate India from the 
Mediterranean lands. When the winter 302-301 closed in he 
had reached Cappadocia, and there turned his troops into 
winter-quarters.^ His force amounted to 20,000 foot, 12,000 
cavalry and mounted archers, the latter no doubt from Central 
Asia, 480 elephants, brought straight from the Panjab, and 
over 100 scythed chariots. He had with him his son 
Antiochus, then twenty-two or twenty-three years old. 

In the spring of 301 he advanced again along the central 
highway of Asia Minor. Antigonus failed to prevent his 
junction with Lysimachus, and at Ipsus, which lay on the 
highway,- he had to meet the united armies of the two kings. 
Plutarch gives an account of the battle with various picturesque 
details. It was preceded, he tells us, by omens which por- 
tended disaster to Antigonus. In the course of the fight 
Demetrius, who commanded the flower of his father's cavalry, 
came into collision with the young prince Antiochus, and, after 

1 Diod. XX. 113, 4. 
" Ramsay, Historical Geography of Asia Minor, p. 35. 


a Ijrilliant passage of arms, routed his opponents. But he 
pressed the pursuit too far. This spoilt the victory. The 
elephants of Seleucus thrust in between him and the phalanx 
of Antigonus. The forces of Seleucus and Lysimachus circled 
round that powerful but unwieldy mass, threatening attack, 
but trying in reality to frighten the troops of Antigonus into 
desertion. And in fact a large section voluntarily went over 
to the winning side. The rest fled. Then a body of javelin- 
men bore down upon the place where Antigonus himself was 
stationed. Some one drew his attention to them : " These 
men are levelling at you, king." The old man was unmoved 
" Let them ; Demetrius will come to my support." To the 
end he believed his son was at hand, and kept scanning the 
horizon. Then the javelins struck him and he fell, pierced 
with many wounds. Only Thorax of Larissa remained beside 
the body.^ 

1 Plutarch, Dem. 29. 
Sources. — Diod. xix., xx. ; App. .Syr. ; Plutarch, Dem. ; Justin xv. 



The battle of Ipsus is one of the landmarks of the period 
after Alexander. The Asiatic empire of Antigonus, which 
had been the great factor in the history of the last fifteen 
years, was annihilated for ever. The house of Antigonus still 
survived in the person of Demetrius, who fled from the 
disastrous battle to Ephesus. His power was unbroken on 
the seas, and many places in the Levant were still held by his 
garrisons — Cyprus, Caunus, Tyre and Sidon. But for the 
moment the other four houses had almost driven the house of 
Antigonus from the field. " The victorious kings proceeded to 
cut up the empire of Antigonus like a great carcase, taking 
slices for themselves and adding its provinces to those they 
already ruled." ^ It was Seleucus and Lysimachus who gained 
the most in territory. Seleucus now annexed Syria, and 
Lysimachus a great part of the territory ruled by Antigonus 
in Asia Minor ; where exactly the new frontier was drawn we 
cannot say.^ Cilicia was ceded to Plistarchus, the brother of 

There was one territorial controversy which the partition 
after Ipsus bequeathed to later generations — the question 
between the house of Seleucus and the house of Ptolemy as to 
the possession of Ccele-Syria, the country we call Palestine. 
Ptolemy had long been concerned to possess Syria south of 
the Lebanon ; during the war with Antigonus he had on 
several occasions seized this country and again lost it. When 
the alliance of the four kings had been renewed in 302, 

1 Plutarch, Bern. 30. ^ See page 98 and Appendix D. 



Ptolemy bad stipulated for it as his share in the gains, and to 
this the others had agreed. At the same time that Lysimachus 
attacked Antigonus in Asia Minor, Ptolemy invaded and 
occupied Palestine. Then on some false report that Lysimachus 
had been crushed, Ptolemy made haste to evacuate it. This 
was the action on which the controversy turned. Seleucus, 
and apparently the other two kings whose forces had fought 
at Ipsus, contended that this withdrawal of Ptolemy's was a 
desertion of the common cause, and that his claim to Palestine 
in virtue of the original agreement was forfeit. Ptolemy on 
the other hand maintained that it still held good. When 
Seleucus crossed the Taurus again after Ipsus to take possession 
of his new Syrian provinces, be found that Ptolemy had once 
more occupied Palestine. Seleucus could only obtain the 
country by superior force. But he felt himself restrained by 
decency from applying force to Ptolemy, not only an ally of 
old standing, but the man to whom he owed his own rise. 
He contented himself with an indignant protest. He declared 
to Ptolemy that " he would for the present take no active 
measures for friendship's sake," but that "he should consider 
later how to deal with a friend who seized more than 
his share." 

As a matter of fact, Seleucus, in consequence of the battle 
of Ipsus, had stepped, one might almost say, into the place of 
Antigonus, just as Antigonus had stepped into the place of 
Perdiccas. Seleucus now held a position which overshadowed 
that of all the other chieftains. And accordingly, just as 
Antigonus found himself in 315 in opposition to his old allies 
and allied with his old enemies, so it also happened with 
Seleucus. His neighbours Lysimachus and Ptolemy drew 
together. Lysimachus took Arsinoe, the daughter of Ptolemy, 
to wife. On his part Seleucus made overtures to the roving 
Demetrius. He asked the hand of Stratonice, his daughter by 
Phila the daughter of Antipater. Demetrius himself was 
invited to Syria. 

This offer came to Demetrius as an "unexpected piece of 
fortune." He at once set sail for Syria with Stratonice. On 
the way he raided Cilicia, the province of Plistarchus, and 
carried off 1200 talents from Cyinda, a residue of the 


Achaemenian hoards. Demetrius, Phila and Stratonice were 
received by Seleuciis at the coast town of Ehossns. "The 
intercourse of the two kings was marked from the first by- 
frankness, confidence and royal splendour. They took their 
pastimes, conversed and lived together with no setting of 
guards or wearing of arms, until Seleucus took Stratonice 
with imposing ceremony and went up to Antioch." ^ The new 
alliance was notified to the Greek cities in the occupation of 
Demetrius by envoys sent out in the name of both kings.^ 

With his position thus improved, Demetrius began to 
meditate new aggressions. He occupied Cilicia, Plistarchus 
withdrawing apparently to complain to his brother. King 
Cassander. Seleucus would seem to have countenanced this 
proceeding, for we find him soon after using his good offices 
with Ptolemy, with whom his relations, in spite of the matter 
of Ccele-Syria, were still friendly, to obtain the betrothal to 
Demetrius of one of Ptolemy's daughters. But the fresh 
ambitions of Demetrius showed that the house of Antigonus 
was not yet eliminated, and this to some extent restored the 
common antagonism of the four kings to their old enemy. A 
rupture between Seleucus and Demetrius took place. Its 
immediate cause was the demand of Seleucus that Demetrius 
should sell him Cilicia. When Demetrius refused, Seleucus 
in more menacing terms asked for Tyre and Sidon, which 
garrisons of Demetrius still retained. He received the proud 
answer that not even if Demetrius had to live through ten 
thousand other battles of Ipsus would he wish for Seleucus as 
a son-in-law on mercenary conditions, and the" garrisons in the 
two cities were strengthened. Soon after this he left the East 
to restore his fortunes on the other side of the Aegean. 

The years following Ipsus were, no doubt, fruitful in the 
internal development of the Empire of Seleucus. Seated now 
in Antioch, the new city he had built on the Orontes to replace 
Antigonia, Seleucus could survey both East and West and 
consolidate his power throughout the vast regions he had come 
to rule. But here again all record has perished. One 
administrative measure only finds mention in our traditions, 

' Plutarch, Dem. 32. 
^ The embassy of Nicagoras the Rhodian to Ephesus, Michel No. 492. 


the division of the Empire into an eastern and western part, 
the former with its capital in Babylonia, in the new city of 
Seleucia- on -the -Tigris. Here the son of Seleucus and the 
Bactrian Apama is installed as viceroy of the dominion beyond 
the Euphrates.^ 

This measure, however, owes its mention, not to its historical 
importance, but to its being connected with a story of that 
sentimental flavour, tinged with incest, which so pleased the 
taste of the later Greeks. Appian elaborates the story in 
greater detail than any other part of the history of Seleucus 
and his successors. Briefly, the prince Antiochus conceived a 
passion for his young step -mother Stratonice, and pined in 
silence. When, however, the court physician Erasistratus 
discovered the nature of his malady and revealed it to the 
King, Seleucus, with a paternal devotion considered exemplary, 
resolved to pass on his wife to his son. He further determined 
to make over to him at the same time the eastern haK of the 
Empire. An assembly of all ranks of the Macedonian troops 
at Antioch was convoked, and the King proclaimed to them 
the betrothal of Antiochus and Stratonice, and their appointment 
to be King and Queen of the East. To remove any scruples 
as to a union abhorrent to Greek morality, Seleucus adopted 
the maxim of statecraft which Herodotus attributes to the 
royal judges of Cambyses, that the King is above law : " The 
King's decree makes every action right" (about 293).^ 

Its association with a story of this kind has served to 
rescue a great political measure from oblivion. Otherwise the 
history of Seleucus after Ipsus is lit up for us only by the 
meteoric personality of Demetrius. In 297-296 Cassander died, 
leaving no strong successor. His eldest son, Philip, died a year 
after his father; and then came a divided kingship in Macedonia, 
two other sons, Antipater and Alexander, reigning conjointly, 
held in leading strings by their mother, Thessalonice, the great 
Philip's daughter. Such a state of things gave Demetrius his 
chance. He began once more to make himself master of the 
cities of Greece. The children of Cassander were not in a 

1 App. Sijr. 62. 

^ App. Syr. 59 f. ; Plutarch, Dem. 38 ; Lucian, De Syria dea, 17 f. ; cf. Hdt. 
iii. 31. 


position to hinder his progress. Soon there were open feuds 
in the house of Cassander. Antipater murdered his mother, 
the last representative of the old royal line, and the two 
brothers fell to fighting. Demetrius dashed into this chaos 
and seized the Macedonian throne (293). 

It is certainly one of the ironies of history that the object 
which Antigonus the One-eyed, with all his resources as lord 
of Asia, had vainly pursued so long should have been attained 
by his son after that Asiatic empire had perished. But the 
throne of Demetrius was anything but secure. The other 
three kings, alarmed at this resurrection of the house of 
Antigonus, united once more against it. Lysimachus had 
already driven the forces of Demetrius from a number of the 
coast cities of Asia Minor, where they had held on after Ipsus ; 
Ptolemy had reconquered Cyprus. The three kings found an 
instrument in Pyrrhus of Epirus. He and Lysimachus 
simultaneously invaded Macedonia, whilst Ptolemy's vessels 
appeared off the coast of Greece. It was perhaps at the same 
time that Seleucus occupied Cilicia. 

Demetrius was driven by the desertion of his troops to 
quit Macedonia, and the country was divided between 
Lysimachus and Pyrrhus (287). For a while after this 
Demetrius mixed in the confused politics of Central Greece, 
where there were still troops afoot which paid him allegiance, 
and he had soon collected a sufficient power to annoy Athens. 
But it was too narrow a world for his ambitions and he was 
outmatched by Pyrrhus. Then once more he turned his eyes 
to the East. With an army of 11,000 foot and a body of 
cavalry he landed in Asia Minor. He met with some success. 
Even Sardis fell. The tide of desertion in Caria and Lydia 
began to set in his favour. But Agathocles, the son of 
Lysimachus, drew near with a force to redress the balance. 
Demetrius plunged into the interior. He conceived the 
daring plan of invading Iran. Perhaps he counted on the 
favour of his daughter, who reigned as queen of that land. 
The great difficulty in his plan was to reach Iran at all. It 
was difficult for two reasons : the mercenaries of those days 
had a profound objection to expeditions into out-of-the-way 
regions, whence it was difficult to bring back loot and where 


there was no opportunity of changing their service ; and 
secondly, Agathocles pressed the pursuit so closely that 
Demetrius was unable to procure supplies. There was soon 
famine in his camp. Then he lost a number of men in the 
passage of the river Lycus.^ Then disease broke out. His 
army was, from all causes, reduced by 8000 men. 

It was in this predicament that he determined to enter 
the realm of Seleucus and throw himself upon the compassion 
of his late ally. He crossed the Taurus into Cilicia and entered 
Tarsus. But he was careful to show that he did not come as 
an enemy. The fields through which he passed were left 
unharmed, and from Tarsus he wrote a letter of appeal to 
Seleucus in Syria. Seleucus seems to have been a good- 
natured man, and even apart from that, the age was favourable 
to acts of showy magnanimity. He at once wrote orders to 
his generals in Cilicia to furnish Demetrius with all that befitted 
royalty and to victual his starving troops. 

But here another voice was raised, that of Patrocles, the 
King's chief counsellor. He represented strongly to Seleucus 
the danger of allowing a man of Demetrius' ambition and 
abilities to take up his residence in the kingdom. His 
arguments worked so upon Seleucus, that the King completely 
reversed his first intentions. He marched in person into 
Cilicia at the head of a large force to complete Demetrius' 

To Demetrius this sudden change of policy was disconcerting. 
He took refuge among the defiles of the Taurus, and thence 
dispatched fresh appeals. Might he be allowed to establish 
himself as the petty chief of some of the free mountain folk ? 
He promised to be content with such a kingdom. At any rate 
he implored Seleucus to suffer him to maintain his force where 
it was during the winter (286-285), and not force him back 
into the clutch of his implacable foe, Lysimachus. 

But Seleucus was still under the influence of Patrocles. 
He gave Demetrius leave to take up quarters for two of the 
winter months, if he liked, in Cataonia, the highland country 
adjoining Cappadocia, on condition that he sent his principal 
friends as hostages. He then proceeded to barricade the passes 

1 Cf. Polyaen. iv. 7, 12. 


of the Amanus, just as Agathocles had those of the Taurus, so 
that Demetrius was penned up in Cilicia with no outlet either 
into Asia Minor or Syria. But now Demetrius turned fiercely 
like a beast at bay. He began to waste the fields that he had 
hitherto spared. He defeated detachments of the troops of 
Seleucus, including the scythed chariots. He secured the passes, 
beating the people of Seleucus from the barricades. 

With these strokes the spirit of his followers rose. Their 
tidings caused anxiety at the courts of the other kings. In 
those days, when power was so swiftly lost and won, it was 
unwise to underrate the importance of any successes, and the 
prestige of Demetrius the Besieger was enormous. Lysimachus 
sent an offer of help to Seleucus. But Seleucus was in doubt 
which to fear most, Demetrius or Lysimachus. He declined 
the offer. At the same time he was not over-eager to join 
battle with the desperate man. 

At this critical moment Demetrius fell ill. Thenceforward 
his cause was lost. When after forty days he was himself 
again, his army had melted away. Many of his soldiers were 
now in the ranks of Seleucus. With the few who remained 
a guerilla war could still for a while be carried on. Even in 
this extremity his genius secured him flashes of triumph. 
When the generals of Seleucus believed him about to raid the 
Cilician lowlands, he suddenly dashed across the Amanus and 
was in the rich plains of Syria, spreading havoc as far as 
Cyrrhestice, where Seleucus had been carefully planting the 
new civilization. Seleucus himself brought up a force to run 
him to ground. His camp narrowly escaped a surprise by 
night, and the next day Demetrius gained a partial success on 
one of his wings. But if Demetrius was bold, so too could 
Seleucus be. He understood where the weakness of Demetrius 
lay. With courage worthy of an old companion of Alexander, 
he took off his helmet, and with nothing but a light shield to 
defend his head, rode straight up to the enemy's Knes and 
himseK, in a loud voice, invited them to desert. The effect 
was electrical. With a shout of acclaim the little band of 
Demetrius hailed Seleucus king. Demetrius made off with a 
handful of followers. His one idea was to reach the Aegean. 
His friends, he hoped, were still in possession of the harbour 


of Caunus. Till nightfall he took refuge in the neighbouring 
woods, so that he might recross the Amanus in the dark. 
When, however, his party crept close to the passes they saw 
them lit up by the fires of Seleucus' pickets. They were too 
late. The checkmate was achieved. The little party grew 
still less. All that night Demetrius wandered aimlessly in 
the woods. Next day he was at last persuaded to surrender 
himself to Seleucus. 

Once more the first impulse of Seleucus was to show him- 
self generous. When he received Demetrius' emissary he 
exclaimed that it was to him that fortune had been kind in 
preserving Demetrius alive to this hour, in affording him an 
opportunity to add to his other glories a signal exhibition of 
humanity and goodness. His chamberlains were ordered to 
erect a royal pavilion for the reception of the fallen king. 
He chose as his envoy to carry his answer to Demetrius a 
person of his entourage, Apollonides, with whom Demetrius 
had once been intimate. The King's mood set the tune for 
the court. The courtiers, by twos and threes at first, then en 
masse, sped to Demetrius, almost tumbling over each other in 
their eagerness to be beforehand. For the favour of Demetrius, 
they reckoned, would be particularly worth having at the 
court of Seleucus in the days to come. 

This rush had not been expected by Seleucus. It alarmed 
him. The enemies of Demetrius got his ear. He began 
actually to dread that in his own house this magnetic 
personality might supplant him. Once more, therefore, his 
generous impulse was revoked by second thoughts. Apollo- 
nides had hardly reached Demetrius and charmed away his 
bitterness by the picture of what Seleucus intended towards 
him, an assurance confirmed by the courtiers who came 
pouring in, when the party found itself surrounded by a 
thousand men, foot and horse. Demetrius was a prisoner 

He never saw the face of Seleucus. He was carried to 
the " Syrian Chersonese," the steamy, luxuriant plains about 
the middle Orontes where the new city of Apamea was rising, 
and there were royal parks full of all sorts of game. Here, 
under a strong guard, he was given liberty to hunt and drink. 



No material provision for his comfort and dignity was omitted. 
Any friends who chose were allowed to keep him company. 
Sometimes people from the court joined him. They brought 
gracious messages from Seleucus. Antiochus and Stratonice 
were expected at Antioch, and when they came — it was 
always when they came — Demetrius would be set free. As 
a matter of fact, Seleucus may well have wished to keep 
Demetrius in reserve as a bolt he might, if need were, launch 
upon the world. 

In 285 Lysimachus succeeded in ousting Pyrrhus from 
his share of Macedonia and in annexing Thessaly. The 
Empire of Alexander was now become three kingdoms, under 
the three survivors of that great generation, Seleucus, 
Lysimachus, Ptolemy. Of these three Seleucus held the most 
commanding position. It was he whom the popular story 
represented to have put on the diadem of Alexander. 
" Seleucus," Arrian says, " became the greatest of those kings 
who inherited the Empire of Alexander, the most kingly in his 
designs, the ruler of more land than any save Alexander him- 
self." ^ And now his prestige had been raised yet higher by 
his capture of Demetrius, by his holding the sometime king of 
Macedonia, the representative of the great house of Antigonus, 
in a cage. 

But the position of Lysimachus at this time was hardly 
less imposing. He was King in Macedonia, in the original 
seats of the ruling race. His dominion stretched from the 
Cilician Gates westward over the tableland of Asia Minor, 
the Greek cities of the coast, Bithynia, Thrace, Macedonia, 
Thessaly, to the pass of Thermopylae. Would the three kings 
acquiesce in the existing tripartite division ? 

It is probable that Seleucus at any rate nursed the hope 
of making the whole Empire his. He held in Demetrius an 
instrument by which the actual king in Macedonia could be 
assailed with some show of legitimacy. Lysimachus was not 
insensible to this danger. He sent to Seleucus an offer of 
2000 talents if he would put Demetrius to death. Seleucus 
repelled the suggestion with demonstrative indignation. " Not 
only to break faith, but to commit such foulness towards one 

^ Aiiab. vii. 22, 5. 


connected with his own house ! " He now wrote to Antiochus 
in Media announcing his intention to restore Demetrius to 
the Macedonian throne. Antiochus was to plead for his 
release, as Seleucus wished that his act of generosity should go 
to the credit of his son. 

Whatever the real intentions of Seleucus with regard to 
his prisoner may have been, his opportunity to execute them 
was soon gone. Demetrius sought to drown the bitterness 
and tedium of his captivity in wild indulgence. In two years 
he drank himself to death (283). 

Seleucus, even with what he had already attained, must 
still have seemed far from possessing the whole Empire. The 
houses of Lysimachus and Ptolemy were well provided with 
heirs. Agathocles, the son of Lysimachus, had won distinction 
as a commander and had hunted Demetrius himself across the 
Taurus. Ptolemy, besides his eldest son Ptolemy, nicknamed 
Keraunos, had several other sons already grown to manhood. 

And now Fate seemed to work miracles on Seleucus' 
behalf and set his rivals to destroy their own defences. A 
chain of events took place which began with the old Ptolemy 
abdicating in favour, not of his eldest son Keraunos, but of 
his son by Berenice, the Ptolemy whom later generations 
called Philadelphus (end of 285).^ Keraunos at once fled, 
and found reception at the court of Lysimachus. But 
Lysimachus was taking a serpent into his bosom. His court 
was soon riddled with subterranean intrigue, and Ptolemy 
Keraunos contrived to awake the suspicions of Lysimachus 
against his son. Agathocles was assassinated by his father's 
orders and a massacre of his adherents began. This criminal 
outbreak had two consequences. In the first place, as soon 
as the truth came to light and Agathocles was cleared, Ptolemy 
Keraunos had once more to flee, and this time betook himself 
to Seleucus. Fate ivithout any effort of his had brought into 
Seleucus' hand the claimant hy right of birth to the Egyptian 
throne. In the second place the murder of Agathocles 
raised about Lysimachus a swarm of domestic enemies. 
The father's yoke had never been easy, but the son 

^ This surname during the life of Ptolemy II belonged, not to himself, but to 
his sister-wife Arsinoe. 


was universally popular, and now all the hopes which had 
been fixed upon him had failed. The city-states within the 
dominions of Lysimachus began to fall away from allegiance. 
The remnant of the party of Agathocles, his wife and children, 
had taken refuge with Seleucus. The army was thoroughly 
disaffected and officers continually made their way to Syria. 
Even a son of Lysimachus, Alexander, followed the current. 
Hundreds of voices called on Seleucus to take up arms against 
the tyrant. Fate had made his way open into the realm of 

Seleucus felt indeed that his moment had come. The 
world, weary of the long conflict, saw once more, forty years 
after the great conqueror's death, his two remaining companions, 
now old men,^ address themselves to the crowning fight for his 
inheritance. In view of the danger from Asia, Lysimachus 
looked, as of old, to an alliance with Egypt. His daughter 
Arsinoe was given in marriage to the young king Ptolemy. 
But Egypt seems to have remained true to its reputation as a 
broken reed. We do not hear of any help sent to Lysimachus 
from that quarter. 

Asia Minor was the theatre of the campaign. We are 
nowhere told its movements. Whether the capture of Sardis 
by Seleucus ^ and of Cotyaium in Phrygia by Alexander, the 
son of Lysimachus,^ preceded the decisive battle or followed it 
we do not know. The site of that battle is uncertain ; it is 
convenient to call it, after Eusebius,* the battle of Coru-pedion, 
the plain of Corns, but where that was we cannot say.° The 
result, however, of the battle we know. Lysimachus fell. A 
refugee from Heraclea in the service of Seleucus gave the 
mortal blow with his lance. The widow of Agathocles would 
have had the victor leave the body unburied, but was mollified 
by Alexander, who got leave to take it away (Spring 281). 
The tomb of Lysimachus was visible for many centuries between 
the little towns of Pactye and Cardia in the Chersonese. 

' Their ages are variously given. See Niese i. p. 404, note 3. 

2 Polyaen. iv. 9, 4. ^ j^^ yj, 12. 4 Chron. i. 233 f. 

^ Niese i. p. 404 suggests that it is equivalent to the Kvpov w^diov in Lydia 
mentioned by Strabo (xiii. 626, 629), where Kopov vidiov is one reading. This 
entails a correction of Appian {Syr. 62), who says the battle was in Hellespontine 
Phrygia. [The site in Lydia is proved by a new document. See Appendix C] 


Seleucus had seen his last rival disappear. No doubt, to 
assume actual possession of the realm of Lysimachus would take 
some time. The garrisons distributed throughout it, the 
governments in the various cities may not have instantly 
accepted the conqueror. But there was no heir of Lysimachus 
able to offer serious resistance. And in many places the mere 
news of Coru-pedion was enough to overthrow the existing 
regime. The case of Ephesus probably shows the sort of thing 
that took place in a number of cities. Here Arsinoe, the 
queen of Lysimachus, was residing when the news of the battle 
arrived. The whole city was instantly in an uproar, the 
adherents of Seleucus (ot ae\evKL^ovT€'i) seized the direction of 
things, and Arsinoe narrowly escaped in disguise.^ Already, by 
the overthrow of the Western king, Seleucus considered the 
West his. So the dream which had been the motive in all 
the wars of the last forty years — the dream which Perdiccas, 
Eumenes and Antigonus had perished in pursuing — had come 
true at last ! The whole realm of Alexander from Greece to 
Central Asia and India was fallen to Seleucus, with the one 
exception of Egypt, and the claimant to the Egyptian throne 
by natural right was a pensioner of his bounty. As to Egypt 
then he could make the claims of Ptolemy Keraunos a specious 
ground for intervention, and indeed we are told that he intended 
to round off his work by so doing. 

And now that Seleucus had touched the summit of his 
ambition, his heart turned to the land of his birth. Perhaps it 
was because his greatness as the last of his peers was so lonely 
that he was driven to the associations of the past ; there might 
still be about his old home faces he would recognize. He 
intended, we are told, to resign all his Asiatic realm into the 
hands of Antiochus, and be content for the remainder of his 
days with the narrow kingdom of his race. 

He " pressed eagerly " {'^irelyero), Pausanias says, towards 
Macedonia. But Fate, which had given him so much, denied 
his last desire. His position left no room for any minor 
independent power. This was a reflection naturally disagree- 
able to one with the hopes of Ptolemy Keraunos. Keraunos 
was a man in whom no trace can be discovered of humanity or 

^ Polyaen. viii. 57. 



gratitude. He saw that the immense agglomeration of power 
rested as yet on one slight support — the person of Seleucus 
himself Were he removed, the fabric must collapse, and 
smaller people would again have the chances of a scramble. 
The conclusion was obvious. Keraunos was soon at his old 
trick of intrigue ; his plots ramified through the army of 
the Kincj. 

Seleucus crossed the Hellespont into Europe (Summer 281). 
The main part of the army accompanied him and was quartered 
at Lysimachia. At a spot not far from the city, a little way 
off the road, was a rude pile of stones. Tradition called it 
Argos, and asserted it to be an altar raised long ago by the 
Argonauts or the host of Agamemnon. The interest of the old 
king as he passed that way was excited by the story. He 
turned his horse aside to look at it. Only a few attendants 
followed him. Of these Ptolemy was one. It was while 
Seleucus was examining the monument and listening to the 
legend of remote heroic days which clung to it that Ptolemy 
came behind and cut him to the ground. Then the murderer 
leapt upon a horse and galloped to the camp at Lysimachia. 

Sources. — Plutarch, Dem. ; Polyaen. iv. 9, 2 f. ; Justin xv. 4, 23 ; 
xvii. 2, 5 ; App. Syr. 56 f. ; Paus. i. 10 ; 16 ; Memnon, 8 f. {F.H.G. iii. 
p. 532). 



§ 1. The Accession of Antiochus I 

The murder of Seleucus fulfilled the hopes of Ptolemy Keraunos 
and brought back chaos. Once more the Empire, on the point 
of regaining its unity, found itself headless. Seleucus indeed, 
unlike Alexander, left a grown-up heir, but by the time that 
the couriers, flying post across Asia, had told the tidings in 
Babylon, other hands had already clutched the inheritance. 
The army was lost. When Ptolemy suddenly appeared in the 
camp at Lysimachia wearing the diadem and attended by a 
royal guard, the mass of the army was taken completely by 
surprise. Ptolemy had prepared his ground well. He had 
already tampered with many of the officers. The army, 
bewildered and without direction, acquiesced in ih^fait accomjM. 
It put itseK at the disposal of the murderer, 

Antiochus, the son of Seleucus, found that, instead of 
succeeding quietly to the great heritage, it was only by a stiff 
fight he might hope to piece together a kingdom from the 
fragments. The prince upon whom this task fell had some 
things in his favour. In the first place, his hold upon the 
eastern provinces was firm. His mother, it must be re- 
membered, was of Iranian race, and those peoples might 
naturally cleave to a king who, by half his blood, was one of 
themselves. Through his mother many perhaps of the grandees 
of Iran were his kindred. He had actually resided, as joint- 
king, for the last twelve years (293-281) in the East ; and this 
must not only have confirmed the influence which he owed to 
his birth, but have made him specially acquainted with the 






local conditions. It had also trained him in the practice of 
government. Again, he was not without experience of war. 
In the battle of Ipsus he, a youth of little over twenty, had 
measured himself with Demetrius the Besieger; nor can he 
have been for twelve years ruler of Iran without having to do 
with the unruly tribes who made the mountain and desert 
dangerous for travellers. Then he held Babylonia, the richest 
province of the Empire. He would probably take into the 
conflict a longer purse than that of any prince, save perhaps 
the Egyptian Ptolemy. 

These were his advantages in the East, but he had some in 
the West as well. To the Greek states of the coast Seleucus 
had come as a deliverer from the tyranny of Lysimachus ; their 
hearts were given to his house. At any rate they might be 
inclined to look more favourably on a rule which was still 
prospective than on those whose burden they had learned to 
know. "We shall soon examine, so far as can be known, how at 
this juncture they acted. 

All these circumstances would tell on the side of Antiochus 
in the long run, but they did not counterbalance the immediate 
inconveniences of his position. In the first place, he was 
surprised far from the scene of action, embarrassed at the 
start ; in the second place, the defection of a great part of the 
imperial army left him for the time being terribly short of 
men. However, he strikes in rapidly, hurrying westward, 
and the first of all those wars for the restoration of the 
Empire of Seleucus begins. 

Eor us a great cloud comes down upon the contest. 
History has mainly forgotten it. We can only see dim glints 
of armies that sweep over Western Asia, and are conscious of 
an imbroglio of involved wars. But we can understand the 
stupendous nature of that task which the house of Seleucus 
set itself to do — to hold together under one sceptre, against all 
the forces which battered it from without, forces stronger than 
any by which the Achaemenian Empire had ever been assailed 
till the coming of Alexander, against all the elements of 
disruption which sapped it within, the huge fabric built up by 
Seleucus Nicator, It was a labour of Sisyphus. The Empire, 
a magnificent tour de force, had no natural vitality. Its 


history from the moment it misses the founder's hand is one of 
decline. It was a " sick man " from its birth. Its construction 
occupied the few glorious years of Seleucus Nicator, its dis- 
solution the succeeding two and a quarter centuries. Partially 
restored again and again, it lapses almost immediately into 
new ruin. The restorations become less and less complete. 
But it does a great work in propagating and defending 
Hellenism in the East till the advent of Eome. 

The natural clefts of the Empire, the fissures which were 
so apt at any weakening of the central authority to gape, 
followed geographical barriers. From Northern Syria the 
western provinces were cut off by the line of the Taurus ; on 
the east the desert separated it from the seats of Assyrio- 
Babylonian civilization, and beyond that again the mountain- 
wall of Zagrus fenced Iran. To hold these geographically 
detached members from a single base is the standing problem. 
The long struggle for each one has a more or less separate 
history. In the following chapters it is proposed to follow 
that of the struggle for Asia Minor — the Trans -Tauric 
Question, if one may use the modern phrase — till the accession 
of the third Antiochus, the king under whom it was finally 
settled (281-223). 

§ 2. Asia Minor 

It is convenient to speak of the region in question as Asia 
Minor, although that term for it did not come into use till 
long after the Seleucids had passed away.^ To them it was 
always " the country beyond the Taurus," or " on this side of 
the Taurus," according to the speaker's standpoint.- An oblong 
peninsula, washed by the Black Sea, the Aegean, and the Sea 
of Cyprus, it formed one of the main divisions of the ancient 
world, with a physical character, an ethnology, and a history 
of its own. In feature it is a sort of miniature Iran. Both 
are plateaus connected on the east and west respectively with 

^ First found in Orosius i. "2 (about 410 a.d. ). 

^ T) e-rrl rdSe rod Tavpov. Polyb. iv. 2, 6, etc. Our "Asia ilinor" does not 
in all points coincide with the "country beyond the Taurus"; it includes 
Cilicia, for example, which was regarded as being on the Syrian side of the 


the mountain complex of Armenia. In both a central desert 
is surrounded by a hill country, the nurse of rivers. But 
there is one great difference. At its opposite extremity to 
Armenia the Iranian plateau is shut in by the inhospitable 
world of Central Asia, whilst Asia Minor, at its western end, 
sinks in a series of warm, moist valleys and rich alluvial 
plains to the friendly Aegean. In size it bore no proportion 
to Iran; but, insignificant as on the map it appears by the 
side of its huge neighbour, this corner of their Empire called 
out the interest of Hellenic kings in ways in which Iran 
could not. In the first place, it formed the bridge between 
Asia and their motherland ; their hearts always turned west- 
ward. In the second place, it was to a Greek full of historical 
associations ; it was the Asia which his fathers had known 
when Iran was an undiscovered world ; its names were 
familiar to him since his childhood ; Ilion, Sardis, Gordium, 
such places figured large in his traditions as the seats of old- 
world barbaric princedoms, the theatre of heroic wars. Lastly, 
Hellenism had already taken firm root there ; Greek influence 
had reached its more civilized races, Carians and Lycians ; its 
western coast was as Greek as the Peloponnesus, occupied by 
a line of Greek cities which stood little behind Athens in 
riches, in culture, and in old renown. 

During the long history of which it had been an important 
part, Asia Minor had never had either national or political 
unity. There was no people of Asia Minor, Since dim 
antiquity wandering races from every quarter had streamed 
into it, making the confusion of its motley tribe worse con- 
founded. It has furnished ethnologists, ancient and modern, 
with a puzzle which has the charm of never being able to be 
found out. Its predominant languages seem to have belonged 
to the Aryan family ; and there is good ground for believing 
that the races in its north-western region, Phrygians, Mysians, 
and Bithynians, were of one stock with the Thracians on the 
European shore. There had never been a kingdom or empire 
of Asia, as there had been an Egyptian, an Assyrian, and an 
Iranian. Perhaps if the Mermnad dynasty in Lydia had had 
time it might have created such an empire. But it came into 
collision prematurely with the rising power of Persia and was 


shattered (547-546 B.C.). Thenceforward over the whole of 
Asia Minor, with its farrago of peoples, languages, and religions, 
was drawn the prevalence of one alien race, of an Iranian 
Great King. 

§ 3. Persian Rule 

(a) The Native Eaces 

Persian rule in Asia Minor, however, had ado to maintain 
itself It was beset by three great difficulties. One of these 
was presented by the native races. As a matter of fact, the 
Persian subjugation of Asia Minor was very incomplete, 
according to our standard in such things. As in the rest of 
the Empire, the arm of the central government never reached 
far from the great highroads. The mountain people went on 
with their old life and obeyed their hereditary chiefs with the 
occasional necessity of supplying men or tribute to the Great 
King. Their independence fluctuated according to the circum- 
stances of the moment, the energy of a neighbouring satrap, 
their own power of resistance. Sometimes the government 
could save its face and its pocket by recognizing the native 
chief as imperial satrap in return for a due payment of tribute. 
But such a state of things has been the normal one, as was 
said before, in Asiatic empires. 

The eastern and northern part of the country beyond 
the Taurus was known to the Persians as Katpatuka, a name 
which the Greeks transformed into Cappadocia (Kappadokia). 
The region designated embraced the eastern tract of the bare 
central uplands and the belt of mountain country, forest-clad, 
seamed with rivers, which comes between those uplands and 
the Black Sea. Its native inhabitants belonged to all sorts of 
different breeds. In old Assyrian days the two great races 
here had been the Meshech and Tubal of our Bibles, and the 
remains of them still held on in the land among later comers, 
and were known as Moschi and Tibareni to the Greeks. Under 
Persian rule a foreign Iranian aristocracy, priestly and lay, had 
settled down upon the nearer part, at any rate, of Cappadocia, 
great barons and prelates, living in castles and burgs, among 


the subject peoples, like the Normans in England.^ To these 
incomers the old inhabitants stood as serfs, tilling their estates, 
hewing their wood and drawing their water generation after 
generation.- We never hear of any revolt among the Cappa- 
docian peasants. In fact, all communication of the court with 
the Aegean sea-board by way of the Cilician Gates must go 
through the Cappadocian plateau, and one or other of the roads 
that ran through it was always one of the main arteries of the 
Empire.^ But in the more outlying parts of the province, 
among the mountains and along the northern coast, a very 
different state of things prevailed. Here the King's govern- 
ment was a mere shadow, or less. Even in that part of the 
Taurus which overlooked Cilicia, in the Cataonian highlands, 
there were clans which knew no law except their own.* Along 
the Black Sea coast, again, Greek writers give us a catalogue 
of independent tribes.^ When Xenophon went that way in 
400 he found himself quite outside the sphere of Persian 
rule. Towards the mouth of the Halys the coast population 
became more predominantly Paphlagoniau, and west of the 
Halys the Paphlagoniau country proper extended to the 

The Paphlagonians were barbarians of the same stamp as 
their neighbours, but they had made a step in the direction of 
national imity. East of the Halys there was in 400 only a 
chaos of petty tribes, following each its own will, but strong men 
had arisen among the Paphlagonians who had hammered them 
together into some consistency. As a military power even, the 
Paphlagoniau principality was not to be despised ; they furnished 
a fine type of barbaric cavalry.^ Their chief, Corylas, openly 
flouted the Great King's ban.^ Officially, he was by the usual 
device styled the King's satrap ; ^ it was explained at court that 
the Paphlagonians had no Persian satrap over them by the 

^ Nepos, Dat. 4 ; cf. Polyb. xxxi. 17, 1 (to!)s Tjyefxovai) ; Strabo xii. 535 f. " 

- Isidorus of Pelusium, Ep. i. 487. ^ Reinach, Mithridates, p. 24. 

* Nepos, Dat. 4 ; Plutarch, Dem. 47. 

^ KapSoOxot 5^ koL XdXv^es /cat XaXSaToi Kai Md^pw^es /cat K6Xxot Kal MoffcnjvoiKOt 
Kal Kotrat /cat TtjSapijvot airrovofxoi. Pseudo-Xen. Anab. vii. 8, 25 ; cf. Keinach, 
MUh, p. 14, and the references there given. 

^ Reinach, Mith. p. 13. "' Xen. Anah. i. 8, 5 ; v. 6, 8. 

« Ihid. V. 6, 8. ^ Pseudo-Xen. Anah. vii. 8, 26. 


King's favour, because they had joined Cyrus of their own 

Otys, the successor of Corylas, was equally contumacious 
(393).'^ Some fifteen years later (about 378)^ the Paphlagonian 
prince, Thu}^s, was captured by the unusually able satrap of 
Cappadocia, Datames, and for a spell the King's word was of 
force in Paphlagonia.* The importance of this country to the 
Persian government was derived largely from the trade-route 
which found its outlet to the Black Sea in the Greek city of 
Sinope, the great mart of the northern coast. An independent 
Paphlagonia cut off the government from this gate of the 
kingdom. And after the capture of Thuys the country seems 
to have remained to some extent at any rate in the hand of 
Persian satraps. Datames laid siege to Sinope itself about 
369° and got possession of Amisus.*^ Coins are found of the 
Sinopean type which bear his name in Greek.' Others, of the 
same type, but apparently somewhat later, bear in the official 
Aramaic script a name which seems to be 'Abd-susin (jddtH;). 
These, it is thought, were struck by a successor of Datames, 
perhaps by his son, whom Nepos calls Sysinas.^ Others, still 
Sinopean, have the name Ari5rath (Ariarathes).^ This last is, 
no doubt, the same Ariarathes who, at the coming of Alexander, 
was established in the northern and mountainous part of the 
Cappadocian province farther east. His castle seems to have 
been at Gaziiira in the valley of the Iris,^*^ and he strikes money 
with the figure and name of the local Baal (Ba'al-Gazir).^^ In 
what degree of dependence Ariarathes stood to the central 
government may be questionable ; he was at any rate an 
Iranian lord, and his presence in Paphlagonia and Northern 
Cappadocia shows that these regions had been penetrated in 
the last days of the Achaemenian Empire, if not by the 

' Xeu. Cyrop. viii. 6, 8. ^ Xen. Hell. iv. 1, -3. 

■' Judeich, Kleinasiatiscfce Studien, p. 192, note 1. 

* Nepos, Dat. 2 f. '^ Folyaen. vii. 21, 1 ; 5. 

" Arist. Oec. ii. 2, 24 ; cf. Judeich, p. 193 f. 

" Babelon, Perses Achim. p. xl. 

** Six, Num. Chron. 1894, p. 302 f. ; Marqiiart, PMlol. liv. (1895), p. 493 f. 

'■' Babelon. Perses Ach&m. p. Ixxxiii. It does not seem to me necessarily to 
follow from the coins being of Sinopean type that they were struck at Sinope, 
as Babelon says. 

^^ Strabo xii. 547. " Babelon, Perses Achem. p. Ixxxiii. 


authority of the Great King, at any rate by Persian influence. 
The Paphlagonians do not appear to have been politically 
under Ariarathes in 336. They had again ceased to pay 
tribute,^ and they send, as an independent nation, ambassadors 
to Alexander. 2 

Beyond Paphlagonia, at the north-western corner of the 
peninsula, the dark pine forests and mountain pastures which 
lay above the entrance of the Black Sea were tenanted by 
two kindred tribes whom the Greeks knew as Thynians and 
Bithynians. Sometimes they spoke of them by the latter 
name as a single people. They were Thracian immigrants from 
the opposite shore, and had the same characteristics as their 
European cousins, savage hardihood, wild abandonment to the 
frenzy of religion and of war. The terror of them kept the 
Greeks from making any settlement along their coast, from 
Calchedon to Heraclea, and woe betide the mariner driven to 
land there ! ^ The Greeks on their side took, when they could, 
fearful reprisals. In 4 1 6 the Calchedonians procured the help 
of Byzantium, enrolled Thracian mercenaries to meet the 
Bithynians at their own game, and made a raid into their 
country which was long remembered for the atrocities which 
marked it.^ 

The Bithynians, like the Paphlagonians, found leaders able 
to draw together under one head the elemental forces which 
exist in rude and unbroken races. During the latter part of 
the fifth century a chief called Doedalsus appears to hold in 
Bithynia the same sort of position as Corylas in Paphlagonia. 
In 435 the town of Astacus in the Propontis was refounded 
as an Athenian colony.^ It was well fitted by its situation to 
take a leading part in the coast traffic, but up to this time its 
advantages had been neutralized by the chronic warfare it had 
to maintain with the neighbouring Bithynians. It had sunk 
lower and lower. From its new foundation, however, it rapidly 
rose to new prosperity. And this was in large part due, we 
are given to understand, to the rational policy of Doedalsus, 
who about that time got his wild countrymen into hand, and 

' Curt. iii. 1, 23. 2 ^^r. ii. 4, 1. 

. ^ Xen. Jnab. vi. 4, 1. ■* Diod. xii. 82. 

^ Ibid. xii. 34. Read 'AffraKov for Aeravov, Niese. 


saw his profit in protecting the Greek cities of the coast. 
Bithynia was beginning to become conscious as a new-born 
state and learn the uses of the world.^ How far the success 
of Doedalsus in bringing the Bithynians under his single 
sway went we do not know; in 409 there is an indication 
of disunion among the tribes." But Doedalsus established a 
dynasty which served at all events as the nucleus of a national 
kingdom. And his house had better fortune than the neigh- 
bouring Paphlagonian. The power of that the Persian overlord 
succeeded in breaking, but Doedalsus and his successors were 
too much for him. The Bithynians were a thorn in the side 
of the satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia, to whose government 
they nominally belonged. Although Pharnabazus might com- 
bine with them in opposition to a common foe, like Xeno- 
phon's Ten Thousand,^ he normally regarded their domain as 
hostile territory, which he was glad enough to see ravaged.* The 
dynasty of Dcedalsus survived all the onsets of the Achae- 
menian Empire ; it outlasted that Empire itself, and in the 
closing century before Christ, when all the face of the world 
was changed, and powers that Doedalsus never knew possessed 
it, his line still reigned, the relic of an older day, beside the 

We have seen that all the mountain country along the 
north of Asia Minor, from the Phasis to the Bosphoras, was 
a region from which the authority of the Great King was 
excluded. It was only now and then that, thanks to the 
exertions of a Datames, Persian rule could break through this 
wall at some point to the Black Sea. But the case was just 
as bad in the south of the peninsula. Here, too, Persian rule 
was shut off from the sea by a long stretch of mountains 
which it could never subdue, the mountains lying on the left 
hand of the road which ran from the Cilician Gates west- 
ward. They were inhabited by hardy marauding tribes, whose 

1 Memnon 20 = F.H.G. iii. p. 536. The statement of Strabo xii. 563, that 
Dcedalsus refounded Astacus as a Bithyniau city after the Athenian refoundation, 
seems to be questionable, Topffer, Hermes xxxi. (1896) p. 124 f. 

^ Seven years after their savage raid the Calchedonians, when threatened 
by an Athenian fleet, entrust their money to some friendly Bithynians, Xen. 
Hell. i. 3. 

3 Xen. Anab. vi. 4, 24. ■* Ibid. Hell. iii. 2, 2. 




ethnology indeed may be obscure, but whose general character 
and manner of life were like that of the other highlanders of 
Asia Minor. They not only held their country against the 
imperial armies, but made the King's highroad insecure.^ 
The Lycaonians, who lived in that part of the mountains 
nearest the Cilician Gates, had even descended into the central 
plain in 401 and made something like a regular occupation of 
the country.^ The names which Greek writers apply to these 
mountain tribes and their several territories are as shifting 
and uncertain as the relations of the tribes themselves and 
their frontiers. In the fourth century a name, unknown to 
Herodotus, embracing all the mountaineers between the coast 
peoples and the inner plateau, comes into use, that of Pisidians 
(Xenophon, Ephorus, Theopompus). The name by which 
Herodotus had indicated the inhabitants of this region, Milyes, 
was now restricted to those of the most westerly part of it, 
the Hinterland of Lycia, the region Milyas, regarded sometimes 
as identical with, sometimes as including, another familiar to 
Herodotus, that of Cabalis.^ The people again in the country 
along the coast between Eough Cilicia and Lycia, where the 
mountains leave only a strip of level land a few miles broad 
between themselves and the sea, a people whom the Greeks 
had always known as Pamphylians, were in reality simply 
Pisidians somewhat civilized by contact with the outside world 
and the Hellenes.* 

West of the Pamphylians the mountains gather into a 
mass, which bulges in a semicircular projection, 180 miles 
across, into the sea. The uplands of this promontory — the 
region, that is, which the Greeks called Milyas^ — are shrouded 
from our knowledge in the times before Alexander by 
barbarian darkness. Their contours merged in the Pisidian 
hills, and the hard-faring mountaineers who ranged over them, 
the Solymi, lived and died, no doubt, in the same sort of way 
as their Pisidian and Pamphylian neighbours. But along the 
sea-board of the promontory, and in the three river valleys, 
those of the Xanthus, the Myrus, and the Limyrus, which run 

1 Xen. Anah. ii. 5, 13 ; iii. 2, 23. - Ihid. iii. 2, 23. 

^ Forbiger, Handbuch der altcn Geographic, ii. p. 323. 

^ Hdt. vii. 91. 


up from the coast, dwelt the ancient people of the Lycians.^ 
In them we have a very different type from the rude 
highlanders with whom we have hitherto had to deal. The 
Lycians, from whatever dim origins they sprang, stood in 
character near to the Hellenes. It would be straying from 
our path to discuss the part they play in the heroic age of 
Grreek legend — those mysterious people who seemed to the 
simple fathers of the Hellenes a race of wizards, able to make 
enormous stones dance together into magic palaces, whom 
yet the light of the historic age shows so primitive, that they 
still reckoned descent by the mother. In the time of the 
Persian Empire the Lycians did not yet form the developed 
federal republic which we find described in Strabo. They 
were distributed under the rule of a number of petty princes, 
whose names we still read on their coins. Such a state of 
things must have meant a good deal of internal friction. And 
we find, in fact, essays on the part of a single dynast to oust 
the others and make himself chief of the whole nation. Such 
an attempt was made by the son of Harpagus (his name is 
obliterated), who put up the steh in Xanthus ; he " took many 
citadels by the help of Athene, the sacker of cities, and gave 
a portion of his kingdom to his kin." ^ 

King Pericles, who captured Telmessus (about 370?), 
seems to have almost succeeded for a time.^ But these efforts 
failed in the end before internal resistance or foreign attack. 
At the same time, in spite of the divisions, there appears to 
have existed among the Lycians some rudimentary recognition 
of national unity.* The symbol which is thought to be 
connected with the Apollo of Xanthus occurs on all sorts of 
Lycian coins, and is held to show some kind of sacred 
Amphictyony ^ formed about a central shrine of the Sun-god. 

1 Their original settlement seems to have been in the Xanthus valley, their 
extension eastwards to have proceeded during the Persian period. 
^ TroJXXds Si uKpoTToKeis aiiv 'Xdrjvaia irToKiirdpdui 
7r]e/3cras awyeviaiv duKe fj,^pos ^aciXias. 
The text is given in the new Corpus of the Greek inscriptions of Asia, No. 44, 
and in the new edition of Hicks (Hicks and Hill), No. 56. 

3 Theopompus, frag. Ul^F.H.G. i. p. 296; Polyaen. v. 42. 

■* They pay tribute to Athens as a single people, Avklol kuI (rvi'lreXe'is], C. I. 
Att. i. No. 234. 

^ Treuber, p. 112 ; Babelon, Pcrscs Achim. p. xc. 


Two main external influences were at work upon the 
inner life of Lycia during the Persian period, the Iranian and 
the Hellenic. It is, of course, impossible to gauge either from 
the few traces we can now discover. The Iranian influence 
is shown in the dress of the Lycian princes, as they appear on 
the monuments and in the names (Harpagus, Artembases, 
Mithrapatas) which some of them bear. The Hellenic 
influence, on the other hand, is shown by the name of King 
Pericles and by the witness of the monuments, some, like the 
Nereid monument, the very work of Attic masters, and others 
exhibiting a style in which native elements and Greek are 

Between the conquest of Asia Minor by the Persians and 
the coming of Alexander we can make out four phases in 
Lycian history. The first is one of subjection to the Achae- 
menian power. Their resistance at the beginning had been 
forlornly heroic — one desperate battle against overwhelming 
numbers, and then the self-immolation of the whole people of 
Xanthus, except eighty households, who happened at the time 
to be away.^ After that they had to pay tribute into the 
Great King's treasury and give their youth for his armies. 
The second phase is introduced by the operations of Cimon in 
Asia Minor (466 ?), whereby the Persian power in these 
regions is crippled. Lycia now throws off the Persian yoke 
to enter the League over which Athens presides.^ How long 
this phase lasted is uncertain. In 446 the Lycians are still 
paying tribute to Athens;^ in 430 a third phase has begun, 
the Lycians are raided as an unfriendly nation by the 
Athenian admiral Melesander.* How far the Lycians in this 
third phase fell again under Persian influence, how far they 
attained an independence both of Persia and Athens, is 
impossible to determine. In 380 the orator Isocrates declares 
with some inaccuracy that Lycia has never had a Persian 
master.^ It is during this period that we have the attempts 
of the son of Harpagus and of King Pericles to consolidate 
Lycia under their own rule. This third phase is closed by 

1 Hdt. i. 176. - Diod. xi. 60. 

3 C. I. Att. i. No. 234. ■* Thuc. ii. 69. 

^ Au/cias 5' ouSeis xuTrore rie/wrtDi' iKparrfffev, Isocr. Faneg. 161. 


the Lycians (under Pericles, perhaps) taking part with the 
satraps in the great revolt against the house of Achaemenes. 
Maussollus, the Carian dynast who betrayed the confedera- 
tion, is authorized by the Persian King to add Lycia to his 
dominions. This he succeeds in doing, and the fourth phase is 
one of annexation to Caria.^ 

The Carians in the fourth century are in a state of semi- 
dependence upon the Persian King. They are governed by 
a dynasty of native princes, who are, however, recognized as 
satraps of the Empire. The loyalty of these princes to the 
Achaemenian King fluctuates ; Maussollus first joins in the 
rebellion of the satraps and then deserts it in 362. But the 
Carians are now no longer the race of barbarian fighting men 
who might be distinguished by their large crests alongside 
of the Greek mercenaries two or three centuries before. It 
is on their coasts that some of the illustrious Greek cities 
stand — Miletus and Halicarnassus, — and the old Carian towns 
inland have more or less taken on the character of Greek 
cities themselves. They formed, not improbably, a federation, 
with the temple of Zeus Chrysaoreus for its religious centre. 
And these Carian cities seem to have cherished all the 
Hellenic aspirations after autonomy ; the yoke of their princes 
they found very grievous, and Maussollus lived in a web of 
conspiracies.^ But prince and people alike were open to the 
influences of Hellenism. The decrees of the city of Mylasa 
are in Greek ; Maussollus, who had extended his power over 
the Greek cities of the coast and made Halicarnassus his 

^ Whether the Carian rule in Lycia continued till the advent of Alexander 
is not certain. Treuber supposes the Carian yoke to have been shaken off 
when Idrieus lost the King's good -will. But of this there is no evidence at 
all. See Judeich, Kleinasiatische Studien, p. 253. 

Authorities for Lycia : Sir C. Fellows, Travels and Researches in Asia 
Minor (1852). The Inscribed Monument at Xanthos (1842). W. Moritz 
Schmidt, The Lycian Inscriptions, Jena (1868). J. P. Six, Monnaies lyciennes. 
0. Treuber, Geschichte der Lykier (1887). 0. Benndorf and G. Niemann, Eeisen 
in Lykien und Karien (1884-1889). Babelon, Ferses Ach6mtnides (1893), p. 
Ixxxix. f. [The theories of J. Imbert {Babylonian and Oriental Record, vol. 
iv. (1890), p. 153 f. ; vol. v. (1891), p. 105 f. ; vol. vi. p. 185 f. ; vol. vii. (1894), 
p. 87 f.) appear to me too fanciful to have any scientific value.] To these must 
now be added vol. i. of the Vienna Corpus, by Kalinka, Tituli Asiae Minoris. 

^ Michel, Nos, 460, 471. See Judeich, Kleitiasiatische Studien, p. 236 f. 


capital, was buried in the " Mausoleum," designed and decorated 
by Scopas and others of the greatest Greek sculptors.' 

Cut off thus by barbarian peoples from both the northern 
and the southern coast of Asia Minor, the King's government 
was confined to a strip of country running through the interior. 
The Cappadocian plateau, the two Phrygian provinces and 
Lydia, it was only here that mandates from Babylon ran, and 
even here there were districts, like the Mysian hills, which 
their authority could not penetrate.^ Besides the Cappadocian 
serfs, it was only the Lydians and Phrygians, now a race of 
patient husbandmen dispersed in poor villages,^ though their 
name had once been greatest among the peoples of the land — 
it was only these who were beaten flat by the Achaemenian 
conquest. But though the King's arm reached over Lydia, his 
hold on the western coast also was vexatiously restricted. His 
rule here encountered, not barbarian races, but an obstacle in 
some ways more formidable still. 

(b) Tlie Asiatic Greeks 

The second difficulty which beset Persian rule in Asia 
Minor consisted in the occupation of a great part of the coasts 
by Greek cities. Here was something which in itself created 
a problem for any power aspiring to rule Asia. Under any 
circumstances these Hellenes, with their inbred abhorrence of 
everything which restricted the sovereign autonomy of each 
city-state, with their inveterate assumption of a higher culture, 
were bound to form an indigestible element in an Asiatic 
monarchy. But, left to themselves, they might be held down 
by an arm as long and as mighty as the King's. Here, 
however, came in the circumstance which so dangerously 
complicated the problem. On the other side of the sea and in 
the intermediate islands, the free Greeks were established in 
their sea-faring republics. So that, while on the one hand the 
Asiatic Greeks had kinsmen at their back whom they might 
call in, on the other hand the free Greeks found the door held 

^ Large remains of the Mausoleum, it is hardly necessary to say, are in the 
British Museum — including the statue of Maussollus himself. 

2 Xen. Anai. ii. 5, 13 ; iii. 2, 23. ^ q^^^^ jjj j^ ^ . yj ^^ 4_ 


open for them whenever they might attack. To hold the 
coast against a combination of the Greeks who inhabited it and 
the Greeks who came in from beyond — fighting men better 
than any the Asiatic monarch could command — was obviously 
impossible. There was some method in the madness of Xerxes 
when he set out to trample down European Greece ; it was a 
measure of self-defence. This was shown by what followed 
the great failure. During the days of Athenian power in the 
fifth century the Persian king had even to acquiesce in the 
humiliation of not being allowed to send any troops within a 
prescribed distance of his own coast, or ships of war west of 
the Bosphorus or the Chelidonian promontory.^ 

Then the wars of Athens and Sparta suggested to him a 
better way of isolating the Asiatic Greeks — the policy of 
playing off one Greek state against another. And this design 
the brutal egoism of Sparta made at last successful. By the 
Peace of Antalcidas (387-386) the Persians regained possession 
of the western coast of Asia Minor, and held it unchallenged 
by the states of Greece till the coming of Alexander. 

We are very imperfectly informed as to the condition of 
the Greek states under Achaemenian rule, how far the normal 
functioning of each body politic was interfered with by the 
paramount power. Generally speaking, the cities were probably 
no worse off under Persian than under Spartan, or even Athenian, 
supremacy. In all these cases the two chief burdens were the 
same — the necessity of paying tribute and the occupation by a 
foreign garrison. The weight with which the King's hand 
pressed must have differed greatly from city to city, or even in 
the same city at different moments. Some, like Cyzicus, seem 
to have maintained their independence unimpaired by the Peace 
of Antalcidas. Others from time to time threw off the yoke 
for longer or shorter periods.^ Where a city was held by a 
military force, the garrison was composed probably in most 
cases, not of Orientals, but of Greek mercenaries.^ Here and 
there we have indications of the King's authority reaching the 
internal administration. lasus in conferring ateleia has to 

^ Whether there was an actual treaty to this effect is, of course, doubtful. 

^ .Tudeicli, Kleinasiatische Shidien, p. 260 f. 

" Arr. Anab. i. 17, 9 ; 18, 4 f. ; 24, 4. 


limit its grant to those dues over which the city has control.^ 
At Mylasa it looks as if the right of inflicting the punishment 
of death was reserved to the King.- But both Mylasa and 
lasus were under the Carian dynast who acted as the King's 
satrap. Often, no doubt, the Persian government thought it 
enough to maintain in power tyrants and oligarchies, leaving 
them a free hand in internal administration so long as they 
sent in the tribute.^ When we ask whether the cities were 
generally prosperous or not in the days before Alexander, we 
have conflicting evidence. Isocrates paints their condition 
in the blackest colours. " It is not enough that they should 
be subjected to tribute, that they should see their citadels 
in the occupation of their foes, but besides these public 
miseries they must yield their persons to worse usage than 
the bondmen which we buy and sell meet with among us. 
No one of us puts injuries upon his slaves so bad as the 
punishments they (i.e. the Persians) mete out to free 
men." ■* Such a description, coming from Isocrates, is not to 
be taken too literally; but so much we may gather from it, 
that the Persian rule provoked a certain amount of discontent. 
On the other side we have testimonies to the increasing wealth 
and fulness of life in the Greek cities of Asia given us by their 
coins, their literary and artistic activity, and the great works 
whose beginning goes back to this period.^ 

(c) The Provincial Nobility 

The mountain tribes and the Greek cities circumscribed 
Persian rule in Asia Minor ; there was a third element there 
which threatened, not the supremacy of the Iranian race, but 
the supremacy of the house of Achaemenes. This element was 
the disaffection of the Iranian nobility in Asia Minor towards 
their overlord. It had been hard from the early days of 
Persian rule for the court in Babylon to keep a perfect control 
over its own satraps in Asia Minor. The satraps had almost 

^ ar^Xeiav irdvTwv wv i) iroXis Kvpia eariv, C.I.G. No. 2673. 
2 C.I.G. No. 2691 c. 
* E.g. Syrphax in Ephesus, Arr. Anah. i. 17 ; Suidas, s.v. * Paneg. 123. 

'^ E.g. the temples of Ephesua aud Pricne, Judeich, p. 262 f. 


the station of petty kings. To remove a powerful governor 
was a matter in which the government had to proceed delicately, 
as the story of Oroetes shows.^ Tissaphernes had to be 
surprised and assassinated.^ They raised mercenary troops and 
made war on their own account, sometimes against each other ; 
they issued coins in their own name. 

Beside the provincial satraps there were a number of 
Iranian families settled down on estates, not only in Cappa- 
docia but in the western sea-board. We hear, for instance, in 
Xenophon of the Persian Asidates, who has a castle in the 
neighbourhood of Pergamos,^ and the Itabelius who comes to 
his assistance is probably another Persian lord established 
hard by. The family of Pharnabazus stands in close con- 
nexion with Hellespontine Phrygia ; to this house all the 
satraps of the country belong,* and the son of Ariobarzanes 
(satrap from 387 to 362), Mithridates, who does not himself 
ever become satrap, appears to have ruled a small principality 
which included the Greek city of Cius.^ How dangerous to 
the King this provincial aristocracy might be the repeated 
revolts are enough to show. 

§ 4. The Macedonian Conquest 

These, then — the native races, the Greek cities and the 
Iranian nobility — were the three elements making up the 
problem of Asia Minor when the house of Achaemenes was in 
the ascendant. But by the time that Asia Minor fell to the 
house of Seleucus to be dealt with, the conditions had been in 
one circumstance significantly modified. Pifty years before 
that date Iranian had given place to Greek overlords. By 
this change the relation of the different elements to the 
supreme government had been variously affected. One 
immediate result was that the resident Iranian nobility, as a 
class distinct at once from the imperial house and the native 
tribes, disappeared. Some of them joined the train of one or 
other of the Macedonian chiefs, as Mithridates, the dynast of 

1 Hdt. iii. 128. " Diod. liv. 80, 8. 

3 Anab. vii. 8, 9 f. ^ Noldeke, Gott. gelehr. Anz. 1884, p. 294 f. 

= Marquart, Philologtis liv. (1895), p. 490. 


Cius, did that of Antigonus ; ^ others, like the son of this 
Mithridates, sought to evade the foreign yoke by taking to the 
hill countries and forming principalities among the native 
tribes, of the same category as the principalities we have seen 
in Bithynia and Paphlagonia, only with this feature, that at 
their courts in remote valleys a distinctly Iranian tradition 
lived on. When, therefore, one speaks of the problem of the 
native races under Greek overlords, there are included in the 
term the dynasties of Iranian as well as those of more strictly 
native origin. 

There were still, however, three elements constituting the 
Trans-Tauric problem, for the difficulty felt by the Achaemenian 
court in maintaining a due control over its Iranian subordinates 
was no greater than the difficulty of a Greco-Macedonian court 
in controlling from a distant centre its Greek subordinates. 
We have now to consider how up to the time when the house 
of Seleucus entered into possession these three elements had 
been dealt with by the new rulers of the world. 

(a) The Native Races 

The native races, as we have seen, had some of them been 
completely subjugated by the Persians, others imperfectly, and 
others not at all. In what measure the first of these, the 
Lydians, Phrygians, and Southern Cappadocians, were affected 
by the change of masters we have hardly any means of 
determining. The Phrygians of the north-west were ordered 
by Alexander to " pay the same tribute as they had paid to 
Darius." ^ Under Antigonus they seem to have found them- 
selves exceptionally well off, or perhaps it was only that they 
looked back to his days as a reign of gold from the troublous 
times which ensued.^ The Carians were left under their 

^ We find an Aribazus as governor of Cilicia in 246-245 (see p. 185), and another 
Aribazus as governor of Sardis under Antiochus III, Polyb. vii. 17, 9. These 
may have been representatives of the Iranian families settled in Asia Minor. 

* Arr. Anab. i. 17, 1. 

^ Plutarch, Phoc. 39. Arr. says of Alexander {Anab. i. 17, 4), ^apStavovs 
d^ Kal Toi)s itXXoi/s AvSov! rots vb^iois re roils TrdXai AvSwf XPV'^^"'-'- ^^wkc Kai 
iXevd^povs ehai. d<pTiK€v. It is very difficult to say what this implies. The 
Persian government is not likely to have interfered with the customs of the 


native dynasty, represented by the Princess Ada — perhaps 
only temporarily, as the dynasty has disappeared by Alex- 
ander's death. The unsubjugated races, on the other hand, 
had cause to feel that a different hand held the reins. A 
Greek ruler could not tolerate the old slipshod methods, the 
indolent compromises, which mark the monarchies of Asia. 
Alexander seems to have made up his mind at once to put an 
end to the turbulent independence of the highlanders which 
rendered the King's highway insecure. In his passage through 
Asia Minor he found time, although intent on greater things, 
to make a winter expedition into the hills behind Lycia, the 
Milyas region,^ to destroy a fort of the Pisidians which vexed 
Phaselis,^ and push his way through the heart of the Pisidian 
country, storming Sagalassus. A year later he had crossed 
the Taurus never to return. But the subjugation of Asia 
Minor was to be methodically pursued by his generals. They 
do not seem to have been particularly successful. Galas, the 
satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia, marched an elaborately 
equipped force into the Bithynian country, but was over- 
powered by Bas, the grandson of Doedalsus.^ Balacrus, the 
satrap of Cilicia, perished in the attempt to reduce the Pisidian 
strongholds, Laranda and Isaura.* 

At the death of Alexander in 323 a good part of Asia 
Minor had still to be registered as unsubdued. The northern 
regions had been hardly touched by the Macedonian arms.^ 
Alexander in 333, hastening on to meet Darius, had been 
forced to be content with the formal expressions of homage 
brought him at Gordium by a deputation from the Paphlagonian 
chiefs. How far from complete their submission had been 
was shown by the fact that they expressly stipulated that 
none of the imperial troops should cross their borders.^ 

Lydiau villages beyond making its demand for tribute and men, and Alexander 
is not likely to have remitted these demands. We may conjecture that it applies 
rather to the Lydian cities, which, while retaining undoubtedly a reverence for 
many ancestral customs, had become more or less Hellenized, and received 
accordingly the favoured treatment accorded to Greek cities. 

1 Arr. Atiab. i. 24, 5. - Ibid. 24, 6. 

2 Memnon 20 = F.B'.G. iii. p. 537. •» Diod. xviii. 22, 1. 
s Ibid. 3, 1. 

^ Arr. Anab. ii. 4, ]. Curtius (iii. 1, 23) says that they even stipulated that 
they should pay uo tribute. 


Farther east, in the valley of the Iris, the Irauiau prince, 
Ariarathes, continued unmolested to form a great power out of 
the materials supplied him by the hardy mountain races. 
He had by 323 at his disposal an army of 30,000 foot and 
15,000 horse.^ 

To the south the tribes of the Taurus were as independent 
as ever, unless some permanent occupation of the route opened 
by Alexander by way of Sagalassus had been maintained. 
Termessus, the great fortress of Western Pisidia, commanding 
the road between Perga and the interior, remained, as Alexander 
had left it, unhumbled.^ Selge, the rival Pisidian town, had 
made indeed a treaty with Alexander, but with the express 
declaration that it was as a friend, not as a subject, that it was 
prepared to comply with the rescripts.^ Still farther west, 
the hills behind Lycia, the regions called Milyas and Cabalis, 
lay, as far as we can tell, beyond the reach of Macedonian 
arms. Cibyra, with a population of mixed origins, Lydian and 
Pisidian, was probably already a strong mountain state under 
native chiefs. A century and a half later its villages stretched 
from the Ehodian Peraea and the Lycian valleys to the confines 
of Termessus, and it could put an army of 30,000 foot and 
2000 horse in the field.* 

East of Selge, the hills as far as the Cilician Gates were, 
as far as we know, untouched ground. In fact it is impossible 
to trace any progress in the subjugation of Asia Minor from 
the date of Alexander's passage to the date of his death. 
Occupied in distant expeditions, he had hardly time to begin 
the work of consolidating. The abandonment of schemes of 
further conquest after his death gave the Regent Perdiccas 
scope for dealing with the omissions in Alexander's rapid work. 
In the year after Alexander died, Perdiccas was with the 
Kings in Asia Minor to support Eumenes, on whom, as satrap 
of Cappadocia and Paphlagonia, the task of subduing Ariarathes 
and any other native dynasties had been laid. Together 
Perdiccas and Eumenes, with the imperial army, advanced into 
northern Cappadocia. Ariarathes threw his native levies 

1 Diod. xyiii. 16 ; cf. App. Mith. 8. 

2 Arr. Anah. i. 28, 2 ; Diod. xviii. 45. 

» Arr. Anah. i. 28, 1 ; Strabo xii. 571. ■* Strabo xiii. 631. 


before them in vain. He lost two battles, and found himself 
and his house in the Macedonians' hands. Perdiccas treated 
him with the same cruel rigour which Asiatic kings had made 
the rule in the case of rebels. The old prince, now eighty-two, 
was crucified and his family destroyed. Eumenes immediately 
took measures to organize the province.^ 

From dealing with the northern part of Asia Minor, the 
Eegent immediately went on to deal with the highlanders of 
the south. Laranda was stormed and its population exter- 
minated. Siege was next laid to Isaura. Then the fierce 
tribesmen who held it acted with the same spirit which was 
displayed on other occasions by the peoples of the Taurus ; 
they themselves set fire to the town and perished with their 
old men, their women and children, in one conflagration.^ 

At this point the new rulers seemed to he really in a fair 
vjay to carry their empire in Asia Minor to a logical completion, 
satisfactory to a Greek mind. That this would have been 
done had the Greek Empire remained a unity can hardly be 
doubted, just as it was done later on by Eome. But with 
the death of Perdiccas there ceased to be a single Greco - 
Macedonian power. The energies of the conquering aristocracy 
were almost entirely taken up with fighting each other. Asia 
Minor, it is true, fell, as a whole, under the dominion of a 
single chief, Antigonus ; it was there even that the seat of his 
government was established ; after the reconquest of Babylon 
and Iran by Seleucus it looked as if a separate kingdom of Asia 
Minor, under the house of Antigonus, might emerge from the 
confusion, like the kingdom of Egypt under the house of 
Ptolemy. But even though Asia Minor formed the peculiar 
possession of Antigonus, he was too much occupied with his 
Macedonian rivals to extend, or even to maintain, Greek rule 

In the south the conquest of the Pisidian country appears 
to have been suspended with the death of Perdiccas. Antigonus 
was drawn thither in 319-318, but it was not to subjugate the 

1 Diod. xviii. 16 ; xxxi. 19, 4 ; Plut. Eum. 3 ; Arr. TA ^fr' 'AXi^avSpov, 11. 

2 Diod. xviii. 22 ; cf. the case of the Marmareis (Diod. xvii. 28) of Xanthus 
in the sixth century (Hdt. i. 176) and of Xanthus in 43 B.C. (App. Bell. Civ- 
iv. 81). 


Pisidians that he came. It has been remarked that the 
inconvenience to Asiatic monarchies of unsubdued tracts within 
their confines arises not only from the depredations of the 
free tribes, but from the fact that any one opposed to the 
central government has these standing enemies of the central 
government to fall back upon for shelter and support. The 
partizans of Perdiccas, finding themselves after his death a 
weak minority, had made common cause with the disruptive 
elements within the realm of Antigonus. Alcetas, the Eegent's 
brother, had long set himself, in view of contingencies, to gain 
popularity amoug the Pisidians. The young men who had 
been drawn from the hills to join the Macedonian armies ^ 
returned home to report how good a friend they had found in 
this great chief. And now in the day of his adversity the 
Pisidians received Alcetas and his companions with open arms. 
It was to track down his Macedonian rivals that Antigonus 
pushed with a great force into the Pisidian hills. When 
Alcetas had been delivered up to him by the old men of 
Termessus behind the back of the young men, who stood by 
their friend to the last, Antigonus withdrew satisfied. He 
did not attempt to reduce Termessus itself or effect anything 
like a permanent settlement of the country. All his energies 
were required for the great war.^ 

In the north his measures with regard to the native tribes 
were equally inconclusive. The heritage of Doedalsus was 
still in strong hands ; Ziboetes,^ the son and successor of that 
Bas who had beaten back Alexander's general,* himself profited 
by the troubled times to descend from the Bithynian hills 
upon the Greek cities. In 315 he was besieging Astacus and 
Calchedon. Polemaeus, the general of Antigonus, passing that 
way, compelled him indeed to give up the attempt. But it 
was no time for reducing Bithynia. Polemaeus was obliged to 

^ It will be remembered how at the present time in India numberless 
rnen are attracted to the British standards from hill tribes which are still 

'^ Diod. xviii. 44 f. 

" The accession of Zibates falls between 328 and 325, because he reigned forty- 
eight years (Memnon 20), and his death falls after the accession of Antiochus I 
(281-280), but before the coming of the Gauls to Asia (277). 

* Memnon 20. 


make some bargain with the Bithynian chieftain, which was 
embodied in an alliance.^ The policy of compromise with 
regard to the non-Hellenic elements in Asia which marks 
the rule of Antigonus is seen in another instance — that of 
Mithridates. This Persian nobleman, whom the Achaemenian 
government had rewarded for betraying his father in 362-361 
by making him dynast of Cius, had been dispossessed by 
Alexander. Mithridates became, after Alexander's death, a 
hanger-on of any Macedonian chief whose star seemed to be 
in the ascendant. At one time he fought under Eumenes.^ 
Antigonus, rewarding probably his infidelity to Eumenes, re- 
instates him in his old lordship of Cius in 309-308 ; he actually 
replaces a Greek city under a oarharian despot. The son of the 
old intriguer, a younger Mithridates, became a bosom friend 
of Demetrius. Antigonus was nourishing a breed destined to 
play a chief part in reclaiming Asia Minor for the Iranian 
from the European, in sustaining the last fight which the 
barbarian fought in Asia Minor against Eome for seven 
hundred years. 

As soon as the cause of Antigonus began to look bad 
Mithridates was at his old game of treason. Antigonus caught 
him making overtures to Cassander. He determined then to 
crush the serpent's brood, to make away with father and son 
together. The old Mithridates was put to death on his own 
domain, but the younger got a hint from Demetrius and fled.^ 
He plunged into the mountains of Paphlagonia, and established 
himself at Cimiata under the Olgassys (mod. Ulgaz Dagh).^ 
Thence he began fighting his way eastwards along the valley 
of the Amnias (mod. Gyuk Irmak), across the Halys, along the 
valley of the Iris (mod. Yeshil Irmak), drawing the hill peoples 
under him. 

About the same time Macedonian rule was driven back 
at another point. Ariarathes, the son or nephew ^ of the old 

1 Diod. xix. 60. "^ IbU. 40. 

2 Ibid. XX. 111. 4 ; Plutarch, Dera. 4 ; App. Mith. 9. See Maiquart, 
Philologus, liv. (1895) p. 490. 

•• Strabo xii. 562. 

= He is called son of Ariarathes I in Diod. xxxi. 19, 5, but this, according to 
§ 3, means son by adoption. He is there stated to have been the son of Holo- 
phernes, the brother of Ariarathes I, and to have been adopted by his uncle 



prince whom Perdiccas had crucified in 322, had taken refuge 
with Ardoates, a petty king in Armenia. He now (302 or 
301) appeared upon the scene with a band of Armenians and 
attacked Amyntas, the general of Antigonus in Cappadocia. 
Ariarathes was possibly acting in concert with Seleucus and 
other allied kings, who were drawing their forces together 
around Antigonus. Amyntas was killed and the Macedonian 
garrisons expelled.^ The northern part of Cappadocia, the 
valley of the Iris, where the old Ariarathes had been strong, 
the younger either did not occupy or soon abandoned, since it 
passed within a few years, as we have seen, under the dominion 
of Mithridates. The principality which Ariarathes II carved 
out for himself lay more to the south, within the province 
indeed that the old Ariarathes, according to Diodorus, claimed 
as his, but covering how much of the later Cappadocian 
kingdom we do not know. 

All this country, which now fell to the two Persians, 
had been organized twenty years before by Eumenes as 
a Macedonian province. But after the rapid Macedonian 
conquest of the East the tide had already turned; in the 
reconqitest of this territory hy barbarians the long ebb of two 
and a half centuries had already begun. 

With the partition after Ipsus (301) Asia Minor ceases 
to form part of a single kingdom. Now for the first time 
Seleucus is brought into contact with the problem of its native 
races. The Bithynians indeed of the north-west, in so far 
more redoubtable than the two newly-founded principalities 
in Cappadocia that they had already sustained the shock of 
Macedonian arms, fell to the share of Lysimachus between the 
battles of Ipsus (301) and Coru-pedion (281). Lysimachus 
was to have his turn in tackling them before they engaged 

because Ariarathes had himself no legitimate issue. Holophernes, however, seems 
to belong to the mythical persons of the genealogy. Marquart {loc. cit.) denies 
that the younger Ariarathes can have been the son of Ariaratlies I in a literal 
sense, because in Diod. xviii. 22, 6, it is said all the relatives (ffvyyeveii) of the 
old Ariarathes perished with him. But this argument would go to prove that 
the younger Ariarathes was no relation at all of the elder, which is improbable. 
The expression in Diod. may describe a general massacre of the princely house, 
ordered by Perdiccas, without meaning strictly that no iiidividuaJ escaped. 

1 Diod. xxxi. 19, 5. 



the attention of Seleucus or his house. He was not blind to 
the importance of reducing this turbulent corner to submission ; 
he took in hand the task with earnestness of purpose. Bithynia 
was still destined to be the grave of reputations ; Ziboetes led 
the tribesmen as ably as his grandfather Bas. Only the outline 
of events is given us in the few words extracted from Memnon.^ 
Lysimachus sends a body of troops ; it is defeated and the 
commander killed. He sends another force ; this Ziboetes 
" chases far away from his own territory." Then Lysimachus 
leads an army against him in person ; he is worsted.^ That is 
all we know. Whether Lysimachus after his repulse acquiesced 
in the independence of the Bithynians, or whether he was 
preparing to renew the attack when his reign ended, we do 
not know. In 297 it appears that Zibcetes assumed the title 
of king.^ He had certainly won the right to do so. The 
dynasty which had proved its ability to hold its own against 
Persian and Macedonian for a hundred years seems entitled to 
assume the marks of sovereignty. 

Whether the country to the north now being conquered 
by Mithridates fell within the sphere of Lysimachus or of 
Seleucus, as the kings drew the map after Ipsus, there is 
nothing to show.* Perhaps it matters little how the official 
map in this case was drawn, since neither king had apparently 

1 Memnon 20 = F.H.G. iii. p. 537. 

2 It seems to be implied in the account reproduced by Photius from Memnon 
that Lysimachus was defeated in person : ZtTrotViys, Xaix-n-pos iv voXi/xoL! yeyovu}^, 
Kai Tovs Avaifxdxov aTparTjyovs rbv fiiv dveXdiv, rbv di iiri fii^KiaToi' ttjs otVetaj 
OTreXdcras d.pxv^, dXXd Kal aiirou Avai/iaxov, elra Kai 'Avribxov tov iraidbs ^eXevKOv 
(iriKpaT^ffTepos yeyovd}^. Lysimachus seems specially distinguished from his 
generals. It may, however, be that this construction is wrong, or that possibly 
Photius misi-epresents Memnon, since Antiochus, who is coupled with Lysimachus, 
was only defeated in the person of his general. When Antiochus himself came 
into Asia Minor, ZibcEtes had been succeeded by Nicomedes. In that case 
Memnon's meaning would have been that in defeating the generals sent against 
him by Lysimachus and Antiochus successively, Zibcetes had shown himself more 
than a match for two kings of such great power. 

' Reinach, Trois Royaumes, p. 131 f. 

■* The argument of Niese (i. p. 352, n. 1), that it fell to Lysimachus because 
the Pontic kings dated the beginning of their monarchy from the year of his 
death, appears weak in view of the fact that the year of Lysimachus' death was 
also the year in which Seleucus died. If indeed one could rely on the phraseology 
of Memnon 11, it would show that ilithridates was already king before the death of 
Seleucus, but in any case tov IIovtov ^aaCKia, is an anachronism. See Appendix D. 



any leisure to send troops into those outlying parts or inter- 
fere with Mithridates in his work. It was in Southern Cappa- 
docia that Seleucus found himself by the partition with 
unsubjugated tracts on his hands. Two scanty notices point 
to his activity in this direction. One is a passage of Pliny, in 
which he quotes Isidorus as saying that King Seleucus exter- 
minated the fierce tribes (ferocissimas gentes) of Arienei and 
Capreatae, in the region " between Cilicia, Cappadocia, Cataonia, 
and Armenia," where he founded in memory of their quelling 
the city of Apamea Damea.^ This region geographers have 
not yet been able to identify. The other passage - speaks of 
some forces of Seleucus under Diodorus being lost, apparently 
after Coru-pedion, in Cappadocia. Whether the victorious 
enemy was Ariarathes, or indeed what the relations of Seleucus 
and Ariarathes were, we are not told. Only the fact stands 
out that the house of Ariarathes was left in secure possession 
of part of Cappadocia, and that the part which Seleucus was 
able to occupy was now distinctly described as Cappadocia 
Seleucis, to mark it out from the regions held by the two 
Persian princes.^ 

After the destruction of Lysimachus the whole of Asia 
Minor is once more brought (by the theory at least of the 
Macedonian courts) under a single sovereignty. Seleucus has 
now to determine his relations to the most western of the 
three native principalities, the Bithynian. He has to recognize 
King Ziboetes or declare him an enemy of the realm and take 
measures accordingly. He chooses the latter alternative, as 
indeed any one aspiring to complete the Macedonian conquest 
of Asia was bound to do.* Of the hostilities which ensued, 
the historian of Heraclea mentions only a raid made by Zibcetes 
upon that city as an ally of Seleucus — a raid in which the 
historian boasts that he got as good as he gave. With 
Mithridates too Seleucus would have had soon to deal had 
his life been longer. At the moment when he dies, Mithridates 
has already begun to be recognized by the world as a power 
antagonistic to the Greek king of Asia. The Heracleots open 
negotiations with him after their rupture with Seleucus.^ On 

' Plin. N.H. V. § 127. ^ Trogus, Prol. xvii. ^ ^pp, gyj., 55^ 

* Meninon 10. ■* Memnon 11 =F.H.G. iii. p. 533. 


neither Zibcetes nor Mitbridates bas Seleuciis tbe Conqueror 
brought his power to bear when all his designs are cut short 
by the hand of the assassin. 

The result, then, of fifty years of Macedonian rule in Asia 
Minor had not been, as one might have expected, to bring it 
all under a single strong and systematic government. No 
noticeable advance in this direction had been made on the state 
of things prevailing render the Persian Empire. The Greek 
kings had, indeed, brought with them better ideals ; Alexander 
and Perdiccas had begun to level old barriers, but since the 
break-up of the Empire those ideals had been unrealized and 
the work of Alexander had been suspended in consequence of 
the long intestine struggle of the Macedonian princes. So 
that now in 281 B.C. the Bithynians and Pisidians still defied 
external control, the old unsubdued tracts on either side of 
the great high-roads were unsubdued still, and the northern 
races of the Black Sea regions were not only still free, but 
were growing into formidable powers under Iranian leaders. 
Greek rule had never yet had a chance ; first it had been 
checked by Alexander's premature death, then by the long 
fight between the rivals, then, when at last the Empire seemed 
to have become a unity again under Seleucus, once more the 
fabric had collapsed, and the problem of the barbarian peoples 
of Asia Minor confronted in its old shape any one who now 
aspired to take up the burden of Empire. 

(b) The Greek Cities 

We go on now to examine how the change of regime from 
Persian to Macedonian affected the Greek cities. They 
obviously were in the highest degree interested in a turn of 
things which substituted a Hellenic for a barbarian King. 
The rosiest dreams of Panhellenic enthusiasts, like Isocrates, 
seemed to have become fact. In truth, however, there was 
something radically false and incongruous from the start in 
the position in which the new rulers now found themselves. 
They claimed to be the champions of Hellenism ; they were 
determined to be paramount kings. The two characters were 
absolutely irreconcilable. The great crucial question of 


Hellenic politics — the independence of the several cities — 
could not be honestly met. The " autonomy of the Hellenes " 
— it had become already a cant phrase of the market-place ; 
as an absolute principle, no Greek could impeach it with a 
good conscience ; even those who violated it in practice were 
ready to invoke it, as something sacrosanct, against theii' 
opponents — Spartans against Athenians, and Athenians against 
Spartans ; the Persians themselves had been induced to 
promulgate it in the Peace of Antalcidas. The autonomy of 
the Asiatic Greeks, understood in the sense of their being 
freed from the barbarian yoke, had been the ostensible cause 
in which Alexander drew his sword against Darius. But once 
lord of Asia, a Hellenic no less than a Persian king wanted 
to be master in his own house. 

We must remember, in order to realize the difficulty of 
the situation, how genuine and earnest the desire of Alexander 
and his successors was to secure the good word of the Greeks. 
Many considerations would move them. There were firstly 
those of material advantage. The city-states, although none 
singly could cope in the long run with such powers as were 
wielded by the great Macedonian chiefs, had by no means 
become cyphers. There were still civic forces, land and naval, 
which they could put in action. There were still moneys in 
the city treasuries which could procure mercenaries. It was 
of real importance into what scale Cyzicus or Ehodes threw 
its weight. Cities like these were capable, even singly, of 
making a good fight. And their importance was, of course, 
immensely increased by the division of the Macedonian 
Empire. Even a small accession of power to one or other of the 
rival chiefs now told. A good name among the Hellenes, which 
should make the cities willing allies, was worth striving for. 

And it was not the cities only, as political bodies, which it 
was necessary to win. Princes who no longer had authority 
in the Macedonian fatherland, and could no longer call up 
fresh levies of Macedonian countrymen to make good the 
wear and tear of war, rulers like Antigonus and Ptolemy and 
Seleucus, came to depend far more upon attracting to their 
standards the floating class of adventurers who swarmed over 
the Greek world and sold their swords to whom they would. 


It was of immense consequence to be well spoken of among 
the Greeks.^ 

But besides these considerations of material gain, a good 
reputation among the Greeks seemed to the Macedonian rulers 
a thing to be prized for its own sake. They really cared for 
Greek public opinion. Yes, practical, ambitious, and hard as 
they appear, they were still not inaccessible to some senti- 
mental motions. They desired fame. And fame meant — to 
be spoken of at Athens ! '^ The only letters with which they 
had been imbued were Greek. The great men of the past, 
the classical examples of human glory, were the men about 
whom they had learnt when boys in their Greek lesson-books. 
The achievements of the Macedonian sword seemed to lose 
half their halo unless they were canonized by the Greek pen. 
And so the strange spectacle was seen, of the Greeks, after the 
power of their republics had shrunk and their ancient spirit 
had departed, mesmerizing the new rulers of the world, as 
later on they mesmerized the Eomans, by virtue of the 
literature, the culture, and the names which they inherited 
from their incomparable past. The adulation which the 
Greeks of those days yielded with such facile prodigality still 
had a value for their conquerors. The wielders of material 
power rendered indirect homage to the finer activities of brain. 

The interest and the pride of a Macedonian dynast lay no 
less in his being a champion of Hellenism than in his being a 
great king. But to be both together — there was the crux ! 
A king could do a srreat deal for Hellenism : he could shield 
the Greeks from barbarian oppression ; he could make splendid 
presents to Greek cities and Greek temples ; he could maintain 
eminent men, philosophers, captains, literati, at his court ; he 
could patronize science and poetry and art, but reaUy to 
allow Greek cities within his dominions to be separate bodies 

1 See Diod. xviii. 28, 5 ; xix. 62, 2. 

^ ''fi ' A-d-nvaioi, S.pd ye iria-Tetjffaire &v, r]\iKovi hrofiivu} Kivbvvov^ ^veKO. r^s Trap" 
i'fuy eiiSo^ias ; Plutarch, Alex. 60, the words of Alexander in a perilous 
moment of the war in the Panjab. That Alexander was not peculiar in his 
feeling we may infer from the great honour paid to Greek men of letters in the 
courts of the Successors, and the large gifts bestowed upon the illustrious 
Greek cities, especially Athens. Demetrius the Besieger and Antiochus Epiphanes 
were especially distinguished for their passionate worship of Athens. 


with a will independent of the central power was, of course, 
impossible. Frankly to acknowledge this impossibility would 
not have been in accordance with the practice of politicians at 
any period of history. To cheat the world — to cheat them- 
selves perhaps — with half-measures and imposing professions 
was the easy course. They could go on talking about the 
autonomy of the Hellenes, and interpret the phrase in the 
way prescribed by the example of Athens and Sparta. It was 
an uncomfortable thing for a man of Greek education to feel 
himself the " enslaver " of Greek cities. What the Macedonian 
rulers would have liked would have been the voluntary 
acceptance of their dictation as permanent allies by the Greek 
cities. That was the ideal. And because it was not capable 
of being realized in fact, the natural course of politicians was, 
not to discard it boldly, but to pretend that what they desired 
was true, to preserve the outward forms, to be magnanimous 
in phrases. Philip and Alexander always veiled the brutal 
fact of their conquest of European Greece by representing 
themselves as captains -general elected by the federated 
Hellenic states. The relation of Hellenic states (European 
and Asiatic) to the Macedonian king was always, in the 
ofl&cial view, one of alliance} not of subjection. 

The opening campaign of 334 puts Alexander in the place 
of the Great King in the regions tenanted by the Asiatic 
Greeks. It is now to be seen how their autonomy takes sub- 
stance. There is, at any rate, one measure of interference in 
the internal affairs of the cities which seems to be demanded 
in the interests of autonomy itself. The control of foreign 
powers, Hellenic and barbarian, had not in the past, as we 
have seen, taken the shape of external pressure only. It had 
worked by placing the party within the city favourable to 
itseK in the saddle. The destruction of the foreign power 
did not therefore immediately and ipso facto liberate the 

^ There are actual (TTTjXai mentioned in the case of Mitylene (ras irpos 
' A\i^avdp6v ff(pi(n yevo/j.4vas (rrrjXas, Arr. Anab. ii. 1, 4), and in the case of 
Tenedos {id. ii. 2, 2) : Kaerst, Geschichte des hellenist. Zeitalt, i. p. 261, discusses 
the question whether the Asiatic Greeks were attached to the Corinthian 
Confederation, or formed smaller confederations (the Ilian, the Ionian) of their 
ova\. He decides that the latter is probable in the case of the mainland cities, 
whilst the islands were incorporated in the Corinthian Confederation. 


oppressed faction. The tyrants and oligarchies established in 
the cities by the Persian government were left standing when 
the hand of the Great King was withdrawn. It is therefore 
the first business of the liberator to overthrow the existing 
government in the several cities and establish democracies in 
their place. In doing this he might justly argue that he 
was acting for, not against, the sacred principle of autonomy. 
At the same time, in view of actual instances of this change 
of constitution wrought by an outside power which are furnished 
us by the history of the times before and after Alexander, one 
can see how the practice lent itself to hypocrisy — how easily 
a ruler could use the very measure by which he pretended to 
assure the autonomy of a city in order to attach it more 
securely to himself. Every Greek city was divided against 
itself ; " not one but two states, that of the poor and that of 
the rich, living on the same spot and always conspiring against 
one another." ^ The autonomy might, indeed, be held to con- 
sist in the supremacy of the devios rather than of the oligarchs ; 
but in practice it was merely one faction against another, a 
clique of men whose influence was derived from their ability 
to catch the popular vote, another of men whose influence was 
derived from family or riches. Inevitably if one of these 
parties lent on the aid of an outside power, the opposite party 
sided with that power's enemies. It was open to any foreign 
power to represent the party favourable to itself as the true 
soul of the city. It is no wonder, with so useful an applica- 
tion, that the autonomy of the Hellenes was a phrase often 
in the mouths, not only of the city politicians, but of foreign 

The Greek cities of Asia Minor, as Alexander finds them, 
are held by tyrants and oligarchs in the interests of Persia. 
His first step, therefore, is to establish democracies every- 
where.^ He is careful to keep his hand upon the new con- 
stitutions. In a letter to Chios he ordains that the city is 
to choose Tiomographoi to draw up the amended code, hut their 

' Plato, Republic, viii. 552. ^ Diod. xviii. 55. 

^ Ephesus, Arr. Anah. i. 17, 10 ; Aeolian and Ionian cities, Arr. Andb. i. 
18, 2 ; Araisos, App. Mith. 8 ; Chios, Micliel, No. 33. At Heraclea the revolu- 
tion is threatened, but averted by the diplomacy of the tyrant Dionysius. 
Memnon i = F.H.G. iii. p. 529. 


work is to be mbmitted to the King for his sanction} And now 
in what relation does the renovated city stand to the ruler of 
Asia ? There were three main ways, according to Greek ideas, 
in which the autonomy of a city could be violated — by the 
exaction of tribute, by the imposition of a garrison and by 
the commands of a superior power meddling with the con- 
stitution or administration.^ How far in each of these 
respects does the autonomy of the Greek cities of Asia hold 
good under Alexander and his first successors ? 

First as to the payment of tribute. Alexander is specially 
said to have remitted in a number of cases the tribute which 
the city had been paying to the Persian King.^ To do this 
he considered apparently an essential part of the work of 
liberation. At Ephesus he directs that the tribute which had 
been paid to the barbarians should be paid thenceforth into 
the treasury of the local Artemis.* Aspendus, on the other 
hand, is ordered to pay tribute to the Macedonians.^ But 
the case of Aspendus was exceptional ; it was to be specially 
punished. And even here it is said that the imposition of 
tribute was not to be permanent, but for a certain number 
of years only.^ It is clearly an exception proving a rule. 

But we should be too simple if we inferred from the 
remission of tribute that no money was demanded of the 
cities. A showy act of magnanimity has not seldom in history 
covered the old grievance under a new form. A city no 
longer obliged to pay tribiite as a subject miglit be called 
upon to make a handsome contribution as an ally. How far 
this was actually the case under Alexander and his successors 
eludes our observation. It was, in the case of Aspendus, 
apparently a requisition of this sort, a demand for fifty talents 
and the horses maintained by the city for the Persian court, 
which provoked the quarrel with Alexander. The liberated 
Chios is commanded to furnish at the expense of the city a 

^ Michel, No. 33. Cf. the Siaypa<pr} sent by Alexander to Eresus prescribing 
the form of trial for the ex-tyrants, Michel, No. 358. 

2 Polyb. xxi. 43, 2. 

'^ Aeolian and Ionian cities, Arr. Anab. i. 18, 2. Cf. for Erythrae, Michel, 
No. 37 ; Ilion, Strabo xiii. 593. 

■* Arr. Anab. i. 17, 10. ■' Ibid. 27, 4. 

^ (pijpovs dTTOcpepeiu octa cttj Ma»ce56fft. 


contingent of twenty triremes ready manned to the imperial 
fleet and to provide for the maintenance of the temporary 
garrison.^ A rescript of Alexander dealing with Priene 
specially remits the " contribution " {avvra^L<i)? The money 
contributed by Mitylene is returned by Alexander as an 
extraordinary mark of favour.^ So, too, after tlie death of 
Alexander we find Antipater requiring the cities to contribute 
to the war,* and the order is felt by the cities as an un- 
welcome burden. Antigonus speaks of the heavy expenses 
of his allies in his war against Cassander and Ptolemy.^ 

The second of the three modes mentioned in which a city's 
autonomy might be violated was the imposition of a garrison. 
That indeed reduced at once the forms of a free state to a 
comedy. It was the most odious embodiment of brute force. 
We may well believe that Alexander was unwilling to stultify 
his own action as liberator in so open a manner. It is only 
as a temporary measure, or where his hold on an important 
point is threatened by external enemies, or there has been 
some mark of hostility on the part of the population, that 
Alexander permits himself to introduce a Macedonian garrison 
into a Hellenic city. At Mitylene, for instance, while the 
Persian fleet still holds the Aegean in 333, we find a con- 
tingent of mercenaries sent from Alexander " in fulfilment of 
the alliance." ® At Chios the new democratic regime, includ- 
ing the return of exiles, is carried out under the eyes of a 
garrison. Till the settlement is complete the garrison is to 
remain iu the city.^ And we may suppose that the case of 
Chios was typical, and that the revolutions carried through by 
Alexander in the Greek states involved in other places also 
such a temporary occupation by imperial troops. At Priene, 
for instance, an incidental notice shows a garrison.^ Ehodes 
is saddled with a garrison at Alexander's death.^ 

But even if a city enjoyed immunity from tribute and was 
unburdened by a garrison, it was impossible that its affairs 

^ Michel, No. 33. - Inscr. in tlie Brit. Mits. No. 400. 

2 Curtius, iv. 8, 13. 

* XP^MOTa els rofi irokefjiov el(x<{>ip-qv, Michel, No. 363. 

5 J.H.S. xix. (1899), p. 334. 

** AiT. Anab. ii. 1, 4. ' Michel, No. 33. 

* Iriscr. in the Brit. Mus. No. 400. ^ Uiod. xviii. 8, 1. 


should not attract the attention of the rulers of the land, or 
that, attracting it, they should go uncontrolled. Under 
Alexander, indeed, the representatives of the royal authority in 
the provinces of the realm, the satraps, do not seem to have 
been given any regular authority over the Greek cities except 
in such cases as that of Aspendus.^ But the King himself was 
constantly called to interfere ; the " royal rescripts " ^ had to 
break in, as rude realities, upon the dream of independence. 
Even at the very institution of liberty and democracy in 
Ephesus (334), Alexander had directed how the money 
formerly raised as tribute to the court was to be applied, and 
he had been compelled to restrain by his intervention the 
furious excesses of the restored democrats,^ showing at the 
outset to any who had eyes to see how liollow a pretence 
under the circumstances of the time autonomy must be. 
Before the end of his reign he had published the celebrated 
edict at the Olympic games, commanding the cities of the 
Greek world everywhere to receive back their exiles.* This 
was to push his interference into the vitals of every state, to 
override the competence of the city government in a most 
intimate particular, to set at naught in the eyes of the whole 
world the principle of autonomy. The real fact of the 
Macedonian sovereignty, which had been cloaked in so many 
decent political fictions, is here brutally unveiled. 

In spite, however, of these discrepancies with the perfect 
ideal of autonomy, the Greek cities of Asia spring, with the 
removal of the Persian yoke, into a richer and more vigorous 
life. The King himself was a zealous patron in all ways that 
did not compromise his authority, and public works began to 
be set on foot, of a larger scale than the resources of the 
individual cities could have compassed. At Clazomenae, the 
island to which the citizens had transferred their town, out of 
fear of the Persians, Alexander connects with the mainland by 
a causeway ^ a quarter of a mile long.*" The neighbouring 

^ See Niese i. p. 162. ^ jSatrtXtKo. wpoffTa/y/MaTa or diaypd/jL/iara. 

^ Arr. Anab. i. 17, 12. 

•* Diod. xviii. 8. This order seems to have been given to some cities in- 
dividually, e.g. Chios (Michel, No. 33), at an earlier date. Of. the dealings 
of Alexander with Eresos (Michel, No. 358). 

■'' Pans. vii. 3, 5. ^ Chandler, Travels in Asia Minor. 


promontory, Mimas, on the other hand, with the city of 
Erythrae, he designs to make an island — an operation which 
would have put Erythrae in a better position for the coast 
traffic ; unfortunately, the work, after being begun, proved 
impracticable.^ The temper of Alexander was such as to 
make him peculiarly sensitive to historic or legendary associa- 
tions, and turn his special interest to places glorified by a great 
past. In Asia Minor he does not stud barbarian regions with 
new Greek cities, as he does in the farther East,^ but he pays 
great attention to the old cities of the Greek sea-board. 
Above all, his imagination is fired with the project of 
making the Homeric Ilion once more great and splendid. He 
found already upon a mound near the coast (mod. Hissarlik) 
an old temple of Athena, with a little town or village of Greek 
speech clustering round it. This village asserted its claim to 
be the very Troy of story.^ There the ingenuous traveller 
could inspect the altar of Zeus Herkeios, at whose foot Priam 
was slain, and shields battered in the Trojan war which were 
hanging on the temple walls. With such a legend the temple 
had long been of high prestige among the Greeks. Xerxes, 
when he passed that way, had sacrificed there with great 
circumstance.* Greek generals had followed his example.^ The 
temple, according to Strabo, was small and mean ^ in outward 
aspect ; a statue of the phil-hellenic Ariobarzanes lay prostrate 
before it.^ Alexander could not fail to visit this historic spot 
and offer sacrifices there the moment that he set foot in Asia.* 
After Granicus he visits it again, and enriches the shrine with 
some new dedications. He pronounces that Ilion is now a 
village no longer, but a Hellenic city of full rights ; and in 
order to make fact conform to this fiat, he instructs the royal 
officials to create the shell of a city by throwing up buildings 

1 Paus. ii. 1, 5 ; Pliu. N.H. v. § 116. 

^ Droysen can find only one Greek city in the barbarian part of Asia Minor 
north of the Taurus distinctly claiming Alexander as founder, Apollonia in 
Phrygia (ii. p. 661), and this claim does not ajipear till the time of the 
Roman Empire. 

^ Modern excavation has established the fact that it did actually stand on the 
site of the prehistoric city. 

* Hdt. vii. 43. 5 Xen. Hell. 1, 4. 

^ fiiKpbv Kal evreXis, Strabo xiii. 593. " Died. xvii. 17, 6. 

* Arr. Anab. i. 11 ; Diod. xvii. 17, 6; Plutarch, Alex. 15. 


of a suitable scale. Again, after the destruction of the Persian 
power, Alexander writes to Ilion fresh promises of what he 
means to do for city and temple.^ His sudden death leaves him 
time for little more than magnificent intentions. Among the 
official documents made public at his death is the project of 
making the temple of Athena at Ilion outdo the wonders of 
Egypt and Babylon.'^ 

To extend the privileges of the Greek temples, to make 
contributions to their enlargement, their adornment, and 
maintenance, to fill their treasuries with costly vessels, all this 
not only showed piety, but was the easiest way in which a 
king, who had more resources than any private person, could 
demonstrate his usefulness to the Greek cities without pre- 
judice to his crown. It was not the pride only, but the pocket 
of the citizens which was touched by the honour of the city 
shrine. The prestige and splendour of the city shrine were 
the things which brought worshippers and visitors, which made 
the festivals well thronged, quickened trade, and brought money 
into the city.^ Every motive would impel Alexander to 
devote himself to the glorification of the Hellenic temples and 
to press his action upon the attention of the Greeks. According 
to the story in Strabo (from Artemidorus) Alexander offered 
the Ephesians to bear the whole expenses of the restoration of 
the temple, past and current {it had been burnt down on the 
day of Alexander's birth),^ if he might inscribe his name as the 
dedicator of the new edifice — a condition which the Ephesians 
would none of.^ An inscription found at Priene is evidence 
both of Alexander's liberality to the temple of Athena Polias 
in that city, and of a greater complaisance on the part of the 
citizens than had been shown at Ephesus, for Alexander 
appears as sole dedicator.^ 

Under the sun of the favour of the new Great King, with 
the increase of commerce following the Macedonian conquest, 
the Hellenic cities of Asia expand into new bloom. The 

^ Strabo xiii. 593. ^ Diod. xviii. 4, 5. 

•' See the view of Demetrius the silversmith. Acts 19, 24 f. 

* Plutarch, Alex. 3. 
5 Strabo xiv. 640. 

* Michel, No. 1209. (The actual inscription is to be seen in the vestibule of 
the British Museum.) 


festivals, which formed so important a part in the life of a 
Greek citizen, and reflected his material well-being, are cele- 
brated with new zest. The great religious union of the twelve 
Ionian cities had, in the days of Persian rule, shrunk to a 
union of only nine cities, and had been obliged to transfer its 
assembly and festival from the Panionion on the headland of 
Mycale to the safer resort of Ephesus.^ Under Alexander the 
old order is restored. The famous shrine of the Didymaean 
Apollo at Branchidae in the domain of Miletus, silent and 
neglected under the Persian domination, is restored to its 
former honour, and once more utters oracles to glorify the 
Hellenic King.^ The light in which Alexander was regarded 
is shown in the worship of him maintained by the Ionian 
Body till Eoman times.^ 

The break-up of the Empire is not an unmixed good to 
the cities. If, on the one hand, it opens the way to liberty, 
if Ehodes can now expel its garrison* and Cyzicus defy the 
satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia,^ on the other hand it entangles 
the Greek states in chronic war, and renders them liable to be 
seized by one or other of the rival chiefs. They are no longer 
in face of the irresistible might of a united empire, but the 
inferior powers, in the exigencies of the struggle, are far less 
able to study their sensibilities than an omnipotent and 
paternal sovereign. The signal in Asia Minor of a new state 
of things is the attempt made in 319 by Arrhidaeus, the 
satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia, to force a garrison upon 
Cyzicus. It is now for the first time ^ that a Macedonian 
chief makes it a part of his policy to introduce garrisons into 
Greek cities without any preceding quarrel. But the menace 

^ Diod. XV. 49, 1 ; Dionys. Hal. iv. 25. See Judeich, Kleinasiatische Stvdien, 
p. 241, note 1. 

2 Strabo xvii. 814 ; cf. Haussoullier, Eev. de PMlol. xxiv. (1900), p. 244. 

* In an inscription of the earlier part of the third century (Michel, No. 486), 
the birthday of Alexander is kept as a holiday by the Ionian Body ; his festival, 
the Alexandreia, is not fixed to any particular one of the twelve cities. In 
Strabo there is a special precinct of Alexander on the Isthmus near Teos (Strabo 
xiv. p. 644), and it is there that the Ionian Body holds his festival. This must 
represent a later stage than the inscription. 

* Diod. xviii. 8, 1. 

5 Ibid. f,l. * Ibid. 52, 3. 


from Antigonus seems to Arrhidaeus to leave him no choice. 
About the same time Clitus follows suit in Lydia, and the 
Greek cities, from which the Persian garrisons had been driven 
fifteen years hefore hy the Macedonian liberator, now find 
Macedonian garrisons taking their place} 

This step on the part of the two satraps, even if dictated 
by strategic reasons, gives a great political advantage to the 
satrap of Phrygia. He had indeed determined to be supreme 
lord in Asia Minor, and he is now able to pursue his ambi- 
tion as the champion of Hellenic autonomy. Antigonus 
immediately adopts this role before the world, and is careful 
from this time forward to distinguish his policy by this 
luminous mark from that of his opponents. Clitus has hardly 
seized the Ionian cities before Antigonus appears as the 
deliverer, ejects the garrisons, and wrests the great city of 
Ephesus from those who hold it. The satrap of Lydia had 
already abandoned his province and withdrawn to Macedonia. 
Antigonus acts in like manner with regard to Arrhidaeus. 
He had immediately on the siege of Cyzicus sent an embassy 
to read him a lecture on the rights of Hellenic cities, and he 
soon brings force to bear.^ By the following year (318) he 
has himself invaded the satrapy and pinned Arrhidaeus to the 
town of Cius.^ The Greek cities of the Propontis— Byzantium, 
Calchedon, Cyzicus — see in him a friend, and are ready with 
their help. His naval victory over Clitus in the Bosphorus 
secures him in possession of the Hellespontine province. 
What became of Arrhidaeus we do not hear. 

The Greek cities over whom Antigonus now throws his 
shield, as lord of Asia, are, however, exposed to attack by his 
enemies from the sea. Asander, the satrap of Caria, with whom 
Antigonus had not yet had time to reckon, has by 315, when 
Antigonus returns from the East, thrown troops into Northern 
Cappadocia and laid siege to Amisus.* Then when the great 
war between Antigonus and the other chiefs begins, the Greek 
cities all along the coast of Asia Minor have to bear the brunt 
of the hostile forces. That the sympathies of the Hellenes of 
Asia are generally with Antigonus at this moment is shown in 

1 Diod. xviii. 52, 6. ^ j^^^ 52. 

2 Ibid. 72, 2. ■» Ibid. xix. 57, 4. 


the permission given him by Ehodes to build ships in its 
harbours.^ But they are in a perilous case. The forces of 
Antigonus have to move rapidly about the coasts and islands 
to drive off the enemies who sweep down upon them. Amisus 
and Erythrae are relieved in 315/ Lemnos in 314.^ Even 
the Greek cities of the European coast of the Black Sea are 
embraced in the purview of Antigonus. In 313 he attempts 
to send a force to the help of Callatis, which has expelled the 
garrison of Lysimachus and " laid hold of autonomy." * In 
the same year Antigonus presses home his attack on the satrap 
of Caria. Asander, like Arrhidaeus and Clitus, has occupied 
the Greek cities of his province with garrisons. Their deliver- 
ance is written large in the manifestoes of Antigonus. His 
generals appear before Miletus, call the citizens to liberty, and 
drive the garrison out of the citadel. Tralles, whether garri- 
soned or simply ruled by the partizans of Asander, is taken. 
Caunus is taken, although the garrison hold out in one of the 
two citadels. lasus is compelled to give its adherence to the 
cause of Antigonus.^ Cnidus appears soon after as a friendly 

Ehodes is at this time rapidly rising to the position of a 
first-class power, marked out by its character as Hellenic 
republic to be a champion of Greek liberty, and Ehodes now 
formally recognizes Antigonus as the paladin of the sacred 
cause, and makes an alliance, under which it furnishes him 
with ten ships "/or the liberation of the Hellenes." ^ When the 
great war comes to a temporary pause in 311, a special clause 
in the terms of the Peace provides that the Hellenes shall be 
autonomous. To the principle indeed all the Macedonian 
dynasts now formally declare their adherence ; it was still 
possible to interpret the principle in a way which would not 
hamper, but would further, their egoistic designs.^ 

The letter, or a great part of it, has been recently dis- 
covered,^ in which Antigonus announces to the city of Scepsis, 

1 Diod. xix. 58, 5. ^ lUd. 60. 

3 Ibid. 68, 4. * Ibid. 73, 1. 

5 Ibid. 75, 5. ^ Ibid. xx. 95, 4. 

7 Ibid. xix. 77, 2. « Ibid. 105, 1. 

9 "A letter from Antigonus to Scepsis," J. A. R. Munro, J.H.S. xix. (1899), 
p. 330. 


as one of his allies, the conclusion of the Peace. It is his chief 
concern to show how all through the negotiations he had made 
the freedom of the Greeks his first consideration. To secure 
the adhesion of Cassander and Ptolemy to the principle, he had 
waived important interests of his own. He wished nothing to 
stand in the way of a settlement which would put the liberty 
of the Greeks upon a lasting foundation. The Greeks, we 
observe, are carefully treated as allies ; each state is expected to 
take for itself the oath in which the Macedonian chiefs, as heads 
of each federation, have sworn to the principle of Hellenic 
autonomy and the other terms of the Peace. The comment 
which history writes to state documents is often an ironic one. 
Before ten years were out, the people of Scepsis were being 
driven from their homes by the decree of Antigonus to be 
merged in the new city he created for his own glory. 

Antigonus himself is not able to avoid garrisoning some of 
the cities.^ At Caunus, for instance, after he has succeeded 
in reducing the hostile garrison, he feels it necessary to place 
in both the citadels garrisons of his own.^ The consequence, 
of course, is to give his enemies just the same sort of handle 
as had been given him by Arrhidaeus and Clitus. Ptolemy 
now (309) appears on the coast of Asia Minor in the guise of 
liberator. Phaselis and Caunus are wrested from Antigonus.^ 
Siege is laid to Halicarnassus, but this city Demetrius comes 
up in time to secure.^ Next year (308) Myndus and Cos 
appear in Ptolemy's possession, and, passing through the islands, 
he drives a garrison of Antigonus out of Andros.^ 

A growing coolness between Antigonus and Ehodes is 
marked by the refusal of Ehodes in 306 to compromise its 
neutrality by supporting Demetrius in his attack on Ptolemy.^ 
Next year (305) comes the attack on Ehodes itself, in which 
Antigonus openly throws to the winds all the professions he 
has been making for years. The magnificent defence of Ehodes 

1 Diod. XX. 19, 3. 2 75^^ 27, 2. 

3 Ihid. 27, 1 f. " Plutarch, Dem. 7. 

^ Diod. XX. 37. Cf. the language of the Nesiotai : iTreidi) 6 (SatrtXet's kuI 
<rwTT]p UroKefiaios woWdp Kal /xe-ydXaJc dyaOQv al'rios eyivero toIs [rje NijaiuTais Kal 
ToTs fiXXois "EWyjffiv, rds re TroXets ^\ev6eptl}(Tas Kal tovs vbfxovs dirodoiis [/c]at Tjj/i 
Trdrpiofx. TroXiTeiaiJ, naffiy KaracTricrals /c]ai tQp elacpopQy Koixplaas, Michel, No. 373. 

« Diod. XX. 46, 6. 



secures a peace in which it is expressly stipulated that the 
city shall be autonomous, free from a garrison, and sovereign 
over its own revenues.^ 

The correspondence of Antigonus with Teos towards the 
year 304-303,^ preserved for us in stone,^ throws an interesting 
light upon his action with regard to the Greek cities. The 
matter in hand is the synoikismos of Lebedus and Teos. The 
times were against a large number of small cities, and the 
lesser ones tended to coalesce or be absorbed by the greater. 
This process, which might take place spontaneously, as in the 
case of Ehodes, Antigonus began deliberately to further, as we 
shall see in the Troad. Lebedus was a case where a migration 
of the inhabitants might seem appropriate. Lying between 
Ephesus and Teos, the little town had failed to hold its own.* 
A transference of the population to Teos might appear an 
advantage both to them and to the city which received the 
accession. Such a step, however, involved a number of practical 
difficulties. Should the new-comers build new houses adjacent 
to the existing city of Teos, or now that the population as a 
whole was grown greater, should the city be rebuilt more 
towards the peninsula ? ^ How in the meantime should the 
people of Lebedus be housed ? What would become of the 
public obligations contracted by Lebedus ? How should the 
outstanding suits between the two cities be settled ? Each 
city having hitherto had its own laws, under what code should 
the combined peoples now live ? On these and similar 
questions Antigonus pronounces a decision. But there is 
little in the document to show whether the synoikismos is 
taking place at his command, whether, that is to say, he gives 
his verdict as the sovereign, or whether he is merely deciding 
as arbitrator on questions voluntarily submitted to himself by 
the cities. It was quite in accordance with the practice of 
the time for the Greek states to refer their disputes to the 
arbitration of a neutral power. They might naturally choose 
the Greek king, on whose confines they dwelt, without 

^ airdvofiov Kal d(ppoijpr]Tov elpai Tr]v irdXiv Kal ^X"** '''^^ ISias irpocrdSoi's, Diod. 
XX. 99, 3. 

2 He is already " King." 3 Michel, No. 34. 

* Ad. Wilhelm conjectures that it had been injured by earthquake, Ath. 
Mitth. xxii. (1897), p. 212. ^ Cf. 1. 70. 


implying his possession of any sovereign rights over them. 
His interference with their internal affairs, as voluntarily 
chosen arbitrator, would be of an utterly different character 
from the interference of a high-handed over-lord. Antigonus, 
in the document before us, says little to imply sovereignty. 
Only once the ugly fact looks through. Alexander had ordered 
the Chians to submit their new constitution to him for 
ratification (p. 106). Antigonus thinks it well to exercise 
the same sort of control. " You are further to send to us," he 
writes, " the laws upon which you have agreed, and indicate 
those which were introduced by the nomothetai and those 
which were framed by other citizens, in order that, if any 
persons are shown to be bringing in laws which are not 
desirable but the reverse, we may visit them with our censiire 
and punishment." ^ It is no mere arbitrator that speaks 
there ! 

Such were the relations, as far as we can now trace them, 
between Antigonus and the old Greek cities of Asia Minor. 
But by the side of the old cities there begin under Antigonus 
to rise the new Greek cities which were called into being by 
Hellenistic kings. We have no proof of any foundation of a 
new Greek city in the country north of the Taurus before the 
time when Antigonus brought it under his sovereignty. Two 
cities, illustrious in a later age, called Antigonus their founder. 
One of these rose in the fertile plain at the eastern extremity 
of the Ascanian Lake, on the high-road between Phrygia, the 
seat of government, and the Bosphorus. It declared itself, by 
its very form, a city of the new age, an exact square, each face 
of the boundary wall four stades long with a gate in the 
middle, the thoroughfares intersecting at nice angles, and so 
strictly ruled that from a stone in the central gymnasium 
every one of the four gates was visible.^ The other city was 
designed to become the seaport of the Troad. It was a case 
of synoiJcismos. The population of the small towns of the 
neighbourhood were dragged into the new foundation ; Larissa, 
Colonae, Chrysa, Hamaxitus, Cebrene, Neandria, and Scepsis 

1 1. 53 f. 

• Strabo xii. 565. It is curious that the new American and Australian cities 
present the same contrast of mechanical regularity to the cities of Europe, 


were absorbed.^ These were the two cities which owed their 
existence to Antigonus the One-eyed. To both he gave, with 
unimaginative egoism, the same name of Antigonia ; but it 
was under another name that each was destined to become 

A third city laid out by Antigonus purported rather to be 
a revival than a new creation. The name of Smyrna had 
ceased four hundred years before to denote a living city ; 
only a group of villages marked the site of what had once 
been the seaport of that coast.^ Its importance had drawn 
upon it early the attack of the Lydian kings.^ When the 
Persians came, all that was left of Smyrna were some old 
temples, like that of the Nemeses,^ and the straggling villages. 
But the fame of the old Smyrna lived on in the songs of the 
Greeks, and now under Antigonus a new Smyrna began to 
rise two miles from the old site on the southern side of the 
bay,^ built after the admired pattern, with regular streets 
intersecting each other at exact right angles. Thus Smyrna 
began a second existence, destined to be a long one. By the 
irony of fate that city, which seemed earliest to have perished, 
has survived all its rivals and, still bearing its old name, 
dominates a coast where Ephesus and Miletus are forgotten. 

Two years after the raising of the siege of Ehodes the 
dominion of Antigonus in Asia Minor begins to break up 
(302). Over the Greek cities is thrown the shadow of a new 
personality. Lysimachus, satrap of Thrace since 323, now, 
like the other dynasts, styling himself King, crosses into Asia. 
His reception differs in the case of different cities. Of those 
that hold by Antigonus, it is impossible to say in each instance 
whether the city's action is determined by a garrison, or by 
fear, or by real loyalty. Lysimachus, indeed, himself does not 
spend much time over the Greek cities ; his object is to strike 
at the seat of his adversary's power in Phrygia ; he presses on 
into the interior, leaving it to his lieutenant Prepelaus to deal 
with the cities. In person he only summons those which lie 

1 Strabo xiii. 593, 604. « Hdt. i. 149, 150 ; Strabo xiv. 634. 

3 Hdt. i. 15 ; Paus. iv. 21, 5 ; ix. 29, 4. ■» Pans. vii. 5, 1. 

^ Strabo xiv. 646. The tradition which ascribes the foundation of the 
new Smyrna to Alexander (Paus. vii. 5, 1) is discredited by Droysen in view of 
Strabo's statement. 


on his road, Lampsacus and Parium, which voluntarily join 
him, Sigeum, which he has to reduce by force, and Abydos, 
the siege of which he begins but does not prosecute. Into 
Sigeum he introduces a garrison. Of the Greek cities 
approached by Prepelaus, Adramyttium is overpowered in 
passing, Ephesus is intimidated into submission, Teos and 
Colophon give in their adherence, apparently from a sense of 
weakness, Erythrae and Clazomenae, into which the generals 
of Antigonus throw forces by sea, hold out.^ In Ephesus, at 
any rate, Prepelaus puts a garrison. This garrison is expelled 
within a few months by Demetrius, who introduces one of his 
own. When Demetrius goes on to the Hellespont, Lampsacus 
and Parium again change sides." Meantime Lysimachus has 
retired northwards and attaches Heraclea to his person by 
marrying Amestris, who is ruling the city as widow of the late 
tyrant.^ Heraclea has all these years constituted a singular 
case among the Greek cities of Asia. Here the old dynasty 
of tyrants, a relic of Achaemenian days, still survived. This 
was due to the tyrant Dionysius, who had the good sense to 
fortify himseK with the goodwill of his subjects, and contrived 
by admirable diplomacy to keep on friendly terms with 
successive Macedonian rulers. His alliance with Antigonus 
had been peculiarly close, cemented by a marriage between 
their two families. At his death, which took place while 
Antigonus was still ruling Asia, that chief continued to 
protect his widow, who now ruled Heraclea as regent for his 
infant sons. 

Amestris was a remarkable woman, whose person still 
connected the present with a vanished past. She was the 
niece of the last Persian Great King, and had spent her early 
life in a royal harem. After the Persian Empire had been 
swept away by Alexander, she became the wife of the 
Macedonian chief Craterus. Craterus, after Alexander's death, 
passed her on to Dionysius. Now, after ruling for some time 
over a Greek city, she gets a third husband in Lysimachus.^ 

The partition after Ipsus confirms Lysimachus in possession 
of Western Asia Minor. Some of the Greek cities indeed 

1 Diod. XX. 107. 2 Tjj-^ m, 3. ^ ^jj^ io9. 

^ Memnon i^F.H.G. iii. p. 529 f. 


remain for a time in the hands of Demetrius, notably Ephesus, 
the most important of all. An inscription ^ records the arrival 
in that city of an ambassador sent by Demetrius and Seleucus 
jointly, to notify their reconciliation (about 299). Ephesus 
appears, of course, in this official document as a sovereign 
state receiving the envoy of external powers. Not a word to 
show that a garrison, composed largely of pirates, was all this 
while determining the city's policy, as appears to have been 
the case. By 294, however, all or most of these cities have 
been acquired by Lysimachus ; - at Ephesus his general Lycus 
bought over the pirate captain Andron.^ Demetrius in 287- 
2 8 6 is received at Miletus by Eurydice, tlie repudiated queen of 
Ptolemy. It is not clear by whose forces, those of Demetrius 
or Ptolemy, Miletus is at this time held. Other cities perhaps 
passed after Ipsus into the hand of Ptolemy.* 

The appearance of Demetrius in Asia Minor in 287-286 
leads to his regaining possession of a number of cities, " some 
joining him voluntarily, and some yielding to force." ^ Which 
cities these were is not said, but next year Caunus is still held 
by his forces,® and had therefore either never been lost or was 
recaptured now. This is, of course, a merely temporary 
disturbance in the domination of Lysimachus, the cities being 
soon compelled to return to their former " alUance." '^ 

There are indications that the hand of Lysimachus weighed 
more heavily upon the Greeks than that of Antigonus. It is 
perhaps not mere chance that an inscription ^ shows us now 
for the first time a govevTwr set hy a Macedonian king over the 
cities of Ionia. In a letter to Priene, Lysimachus speaks of 
having " sent an order to the city that it should obey his 
strategos." ^ At Lemnos we are told that the Athenian colonists 
found Lysimachus play the master in a particularly disagree- 
able way.^^ We have instances of his autocratic dealing. The 

1 Michel, No. 492. 2 pjutarch, Dem. 35. ^ Polyaen. v. 19. 

* Niese (ii. 101) supposes that Ptolemy regained after Ipsus his conquests 
of 309-308 on the coasts of Asia Minor. 

■' Plutarch, Dem. 46. ^ Ibid. 49. "^ Trog. Prol. xvi. 

8 Michel, No. 485 ; Ath. Mitth. xxv. (1900), 100. 

^ Inscr. in the Brit, Mus. No. 402 ; Lenschau, De rebus Prienensiuin 
[Leipziger Studien, xii. 1890, p. 201]. 

10 Athen. vi. 255 a. 


city of Astacus he wiped out of existence.^ Ephesus lie 
determined to replace by a new city, Arsinoea,^ called after 
his latest wife, Ptolemy's daughter, on a somewhat more con- 
venient site nearer the sea. When the citizens objected to 
being haled from their old homes at his pleasure, Lysimachus 
blocked the drains on a stormy day and flooded the city. 
This induced the citizens to move. To swell the new city, 
Lebedus ^ and Colophon were emptied of their population and 
reduced to villages. The Colophoniaus, with pathetic audacity, 
gave battle to the forces of the King, and their feelings found 
lasting voice in the lament of the native poet Phcenix. The 
new city of Lysimachus prospered, but it was still Ephesus, 
never really Arsinoea.'* The Scepsians, on the other hand, 
who had been swept by Antigonus into the new city of the 
Troad, Lysimachus allowed to return to their former seat.^ 

At Heraclea his action was conspicuously capricious. 
Amestris, after living with him happily for some time, when 
she found him contemplating the new marriage with Arsinoe, 
chose to leave him at Sardis and go back to govern Heraclea. 
When her sons Clearchus and Oxathres reached an age to 
assume the reins, her adventurous life came to a tragical end 
by her putting to sea in a boat which they had specially 
prepared in order to drown her. Being not only wicked 
but stupid, they alienated the citizens by tyrannic behaviour, 
and thus lost the advantage of Dionysius in regard to the 
Macedonian rulers. Lysimachus now intervened amid popular 
plaudits, put the two wretched criminals to death, and restored 
the long-desired democracy. The city congratulated itself on 
having won at this late date its freedom. But it rejoiced 
too soOn, for Lysimachus, the liberator, soon followed the 
custom of old Persian days in making it over as an appanage 
to the queen Arsinoe. So the Heracleots now found the 
former tyrants simply replaced by the queen's agent, Heraclides 
— a change hardly for the better.^ 

' Strabo xii. 563. 

'^ The form of the name was 'Apai-vSeia not 'Apaivbt), Ath. Mitth. loc. cit. 
■' Its synoikismos with Tecs seems therefore to have become abortive by the 
fall of Antigonus. 

■* Strabo xiv. 640 ; Paus. i. 9, 7 ; vii. 3, 4. 

^ Strabo xiii. 597, 607. « Memnon i-l^F.U.G. iii. 530 L 


The activity of Lysimachus as a builder of cities left a 
durable mark upon the country of the Asiatic Greeks. The 
case of Ephesus has been already described. For foundations, 
indeed, which were altogether new, Lysimachus did not find 
room, but where others had begun Lysimachus carried to 
completion. There were the three new cities of Antigonus, 
the two Antigonias and Smyrna. To all of these Lysimachus 
set his hand. The name of the two first, designed to perpetuate 
the glory of Antigonus, was altered. Lysimachus, having 
already created a Lysimachia in the Chersonese, did not 
happily think it necessary to go on giving the same name 
with dull monotony to all his cities. The Antigonia on the 
Ascanian lake received the name of his earlier wife, Mcaea 
the daughter of Antipater ; ^ it was the Nicaea or Nice which 
was to give its title to the Nicene creed. The other Antigonia 
was renamed Alexandria in honour of his old master and 
known as Alexandria Troas (or Troas simply) to distinguish it 
from all the other Alexandrias.^ The old name of Smyrna 
was left unchanged.^ In the case of Ilion also, Lysimachus 
was at pains to realize some of the good intentions of 
Alexander. It was now that the city received a temple 
worthier of its fame, if not quite what Alexander had con- 
templated, and a wall of forty stades (about 4|- miles). Its 
population was increased by a synoikismos of the surrounding 
villages.* The new Ilion became in the third century before 
Christ a place of considerable importance, not indeed as a 
political power, but as the centre of a religious union.^ 

The murder of Agathocles brings the disaffection of the 
Greek cities towards Lysimachus to a head ; they begin openly 
to invoke the intervention of Seleucus.^ There is thus an 
immense advantage secured to the house of Seleucus, in that 
its first appearance to the Greek cities '' is in the guise of 
liberator. It starts with the flowing tide. As the great 
power of the East, it had indeed already shown its sympathy 

1 Strabo xii. 565. ^ /^j-^_ ^iii. 593. 

=' Ibid. xiv. 646. * Ibid. xiii. 593. 

'' See Haubold, Re rebus Iliensiwtn (Leipzig, 1888). 
6 Memnon 8 = F.H.G. iii. 532. 

^ One does not, of ronrse, coxint tlie action of Seleucus on the Asiatic coast 
iu 315, when he merely commands on behalf of Ptolemy. 


with the interests of the Hellenic world, especially with the 
cult of Apollo, from whom it professed to descend.^ The 
temple of Apollo at Branchidae was among the great shrines 
of Pan-Hellenic regard, such as Delphi or Delos. The work 
of restoration after the Persian tyranny was now going forward.^ 
A good Hellene, king or private man, might feel it claim his 
contributions and offerings. Seleucus, long before he had any 
political connexion with Miletus, had shown himself a zealous 
benefactor both of the city and the temple connected with it. 
On becoming master of Iran he had sent back to Branchidae 
from Ecbatana the bronze image of Apollo by Canachus, which 
had been carried off by the Persians.^ A Milesian inscription * 
represents Antiochus, daring his father's lifetime, as promising 
to build a stoa in the city, from the lease of which a per- 
manent revenue may be drawn to be devoted to the expenses of 
the temple.^ Miletus, we saw, was still outside Lysimachus' 
sphere of power in 287-286, and may never have been acquired 
by him. 

The Delian Apollo was also honoured by the house of 
Seleucus. Stratonice especially seems to have shown herself a 

^ That the claim to descend from Apollo goes back to the beginning of the 
dynasty is shown by the Ilian inscription {C.I.O. No. 3595), where Apollo is 
called apxriyhs tov yivovs of Antiochus I in the early days of his reign. The 
claim must therefore go back to the first Seleucus. It remains in that case a 
mystery why Apollo and his emblems should figure so rarely upon the coins of 
Seleucus. To suppose it an innovation of the new King Antiochus I in the first 
stormy days of his reign seems impossible. It may, .however, have been an 
innovation of Seleucus at the end of his reign, when he came into closer contact 
with the Didymaeau temple, and was perhaps saluted liy the oracle as son of 
Apollo, in the same way in which Alexander had been saluted by the Ammonian 
oracle as son of Zeus. 

2 Haussoullier, Bev. de Philol. xxiv. (1900), p. 243 f. 

^ Pans. viii. 46, 3. 

* Published by Haussoullier, Rev. dc Philol. xxiv. (1900), p. 245. 

° The date of the inscription is between 306, when Seleucus began to be 
called king, and 293, when the title was shared by Antiochus. When, however, 
Haussoullier argues that it must be after Antiochus' marriage with Stratonice 
because the privileges are decreed to him, "and also to his issue," he seems to 
me to go too far, .since (1) we know that Antiochus had another wife besides 
Stratonice by whom he had children (Polyaen. viii. 50), and (2) even if we 
suppose him unmarried, the clause, a common one in such decrees, might surely 
be used in the case of a man who was expected at some future time to have 


munificent votaress of this god. The temple registers show- 
presents from both herself and Seleucus.^ 

To Seleucus himself only seven months are allowed, from 
the battle of Coru-pedion to his death, in which to deal with 
all the questions involved in the relations between the Greek 
cities of the Asiatic sea-board and the power ruling the interior. 
In seven months he has time to do little but inform himself of 
the situation, and of even that little almost all record has 
perished. He seems at any rate to have addressed himself 
promptly to the question of the Greek cities, and to have sent 
out " regulators " {StotKTjrat,} to the various districts to report. 
Such at least is what the historian of Heraclea represents him 
as doing in the case of the northern cities.^ It is only by 
what he tells us that light is flashed upon a single spot in the 
darkness of these seven months. The commissioner appointed 
to visit the cities of Hellespontine Phrygia and the northern 
coast is a certain Aphrodisius. He comes in due course to 
Heraclea. In this city, as we may suppose in most others, the 
fall of Lysimachus has previously aroused a ferment favourable 
to the cause of Seleucus. As soon as the news of Coru-pedion 
reached Heraclea, the people rose to shake off the hated yoke 
of the queen. A deputation waited on the agent Heraclides, 
informed him that the people were bent on recovering their 
freedom, and offered to treat him handsomely if he would 
quietly leave. Heraclides, misreading the situation, flew into 
a passion, and began ordering people off to execution. There 
was still a garrison to hold the people dow^n. But the garrison 
unfortunately had been stinted of pay, and saw their profit in 
coming to an agreement with the townspeople, by which they 
were to acquire the franchise of the city and the arrears due 
to them. Heraclides accordingly found himself lodged under 
guard. The walls of the fortress by which the city had been 
coerced so long were levelled with the ground. A leader of 
the people was chosen and an embassy sent to Seleucus. 
This embassy has already left when Aphrodisius appears in 

1 Bull. corr. hell. vi. (1882), p. 29 ; Michel, No. 833, 1. 16, 78. Her statue 
stood prominently in one of the chambers, Michel, No. 594, 1. 92. 

^ Frankel, Insclir. von Pergamon, No. 245 C, makes it seem probable that the 
settlement oi' frontiers was a main part of their business, a diavofiri. 



the city. All seems to promise excellent relations between 
Heraclea and the King, especially since they are already 
fighting the battle of the central government against Ziboetes 
the Bithynian. For some unexplained reason, Aphrodisius 
falls out with the Heracleots. He returns to Seleucus with a 
report unfavourable to Heraclea alone of all the cities he has 
visited. The Heracleot envoys are still with the King, and as 
a result of the commissioner's report an interview takes place 
in which an unhappy breach is made between the city and 
the house of Seleucus. The King begins with high words. 
Provoked by these, a sturdy citizen breaks out with the retort : 
" Heracles is the stronger, Seleucus." ^ His Doric is so broad 
that the King does not understand, stares angrily, and then 
turns away his face. 

The news of the King's averted countenance, carried to 
Heraclea, brings about a reversal of policy. A league now 
comes into being, antagonistic to the ruling house. It includes 
Heraclea, its sister- states, Byzantium and Calchedon, and, 
more ominously, the Persian prince Mithridates. The enmity 
between Greek and barbarian was one of the circumstances 
most to the advantage of a Greek house, desiring to hold these 
coast regions where the two elements came into contact. 
Maladdress in handling the Greek cities might, it is seen, con- 
vert the enmity into alliance. The cities of this League form, 
however, in the present case an exception. With the other 
northern ones Aphrodisius, as we saw, had no fault to find, and 
the Greeks of Asia Minor generally seem to regard the house 
of Seleucus at this moment with feelings of gratitude and hope. 

Looking, then, at the history of the Greek cities of Asia 
Minor, as a whole, from the fall of the Persian Empire to the 
time when Antiochus is called to take up his inheritance, we 
must admit that the result of the Iranian, giving place to a 
Hellenic, power has hardly come up to the forecast of Isocrates. 
Those whose memories went back to the visions and assurances 
of an earlier period, whose youth had been fed by the Pane- 
gyricus and Letter to Philip, must have felt a certain dis- 
illusionment now that nearly half a century had gone by since 
the morning of Granicus. After all, then, Hellenic civilization 

^ "UpaKXrjs Kappwv, 2Aeu/ce, Memnon ll^F.R.G. iii. p. 533. 


was to end in monarchy ? The autonomy of the cities seemed 
as little secure from princes like Lysimachus as from an 
Artaxerxes or Darius. To "obey the King's governor" was 
still a hard word that the cities were compelled to hear. 
That the cities had to do with kings whose brute strength 
exceeded their own, that the course of the world was governed, 
not by the legalities of theorists, but by force majeure, that 
what the city counted its rights were only held on sufferance, 
that the sovereignty of the kings over the cities not being 
recognized in political theory, the action of the kings was not 
restrained by any constitutional forms but solely by their own 
discretion — all these were facts which must have been present 
to any one who looked below the surface. 

On the other hand, it would be untrue to deny that the 
Greeks had profited enormously by the Macedonian conquest. 
If the rule under which they had passed was not less autocratic 
than the Persian, it was far more sympathetic. If the chains 
were not taken off, they were at any rate charmingly gilded, 
and to a sensitive people like the Greeks the sparing of their 
amour propre removed half the injury. If some facts were 
unpleasant to contemplate, the King's government would help 
every one to cloak them over ; it would call the cities its "allies" 
and the money it exacted a " contribution." The moral and 
sentimental grievance which the old barbarian rule had 
entailed was thus mitigated ; in the material sphere the cities 
had gained more unquestionably. We may perhaps dis- 
tinguish three main ways in which the rule of the Macedonian 
chiefs was a benefit. Firstly, they had shown themselves, as 
has been seen, ready enough to use their riches for the good of 
the cities, for embellishing the shrines and furthering public 
works. In the second place, they were the natural protectors 
of the cities against the barbarians, and the barbarians, as we 
have seen, were still a danger in many parts of Asia Minor. 
Lastly, if the quarrels of the different Macedonian houses drew 
in the cities to some extent as allies of one or the other, the 
establishment of a dominion prevented within its sphere the 
desolating feuds between city and city. There was one over- 
shadowing authority by whose judgment the relations between 
the cities were regulated. In compensation then for hurt done 


to the self-respect and the ambitions of the cities by their 
subjection, they were given a measure of peace and enlarged 

With such advantages balanced against such drawbacks 
the rule of the Macedonian houses must have given rise to 
very mixed feelings among the Greeks ; the constitution of the 
individual citizen, the circumstances of the moment, must have 
made it appear in different colours, according as light was 
thrown upon its useful or its unpleasant side. There were 
numbers of well-to-do people whose material interests 
prospered, who were little troubled by ideal grievances, and 
whose main concern was the maintenance of an established 
order. There were others whose heads were heated by the 
phrases of orators, and whom nothing could console for the 
curtailment of their city's sovereignty. One must take 
account of this vein of feeling as always there, ready, as soon 
as it is reinforced by any tangible grievance or any general 
discontent, to break out in the old blind struggle for libertv. 
As a rule, however, the question before the cities was not 
between Macedonian rule in the abstract and unqualified 
independence, but between one Macedonian ruler and another. 
A diplomatic prince might reap all the profit of another's 
odium, and to escape from a yoke that bruised them, the Greek 
cities might willingly accept one more considerately adjusted. 
They were, at any rate, effusive enough in their professions of 
loyalty to many of their masters. How much sincerity lay in 
these professions we can only divine by weighing the circum- 
stances of each case. 

It is in this period that a practice begins to become general 
in the Greek world which forms a prominent feature in the 
last stage of classical heathenism — the rendering of distinctively 
divine honours to eminent men even during their lifetime. 

^ Les deux siecles qui s'ecoulerent entre la conquete d' Alexandre et la mort 
d'Attale Philom^tor sont I'epoque de la plus grande prosperite de toutes les 
villes d'Asie Mineure. Les guerres des Attales, des Seleucides et des Ptolemees 
n'etaient ni tres meurtrieres ni tres ruineuses pour le pays, et I'autorite du 
vainqueur du jour etait toujours trop menacee pour pouvoir devenir oppressive. 
Au milieu de ces intermiiiables competitions, les cites populeuses et riches 
parvenaient aisement a se faire menager, a obtenir des privileges et a mettre a 
haut prix leur fidelite." Rayet, Milet et le golfe Latmique, i. p. 66, quoted with 
approval by Haussoullier, Eevue de Philol. xxiv. (1900), p. 258. 


Alexander had already before his death received from many of 
the Greek states honours which marked him as divine/ and 
the cities were ready to act in like manner toward his 
successors. The usual externals of worship — temenos and 
altar, image, sacrifice, and games — were decreed by Scepsis to 
Antigonus in 310,^ and honours no less elaborate were tendered 
Antigonus and Demetrius by Athens in 307.^ Lysimachus 
was worshipped during his lifetime by the cities within his 
sphere of power.* Ptolemy and Seleucus were worshipped 
both before and after their death.^ 

(c) The Provincial Authorities 

We have now considered how two of the difficulties which 
the old Persian rule had encountered in Asia Minor, the 
difficulty of the native races and the difficulty of the Greek 
cities, presented themselves in 281 to Antiochus when he 
found himself called to assert the authority of his house in the 
country north of the Taurus. A third difficulty which the 
house of Achaemenes had experienced, that of controlling its 
own officers, the house of Seleucus also, should it aspire to 
rule Asia Minor from a seat of government outside it, was 
likely to experience in its turn. Alexander, had his life been 
longer — his house, had he left issue under whom the Empire 
held together — would doubtless have encountered this difficulty 
in course of time ; we may indeed say that the break-up of the 
Empire after Alexander's death was nothing else but this 
difficulty destroying the central government altogether. In 
281 Antiochus, the grandson of a Macedonian captain and an 
Iranian grandee, put his hand to the task which had proved 
too hard for the King of kings. 

1 Ait. Anab. vii. 23, 2. - J.H.S. xix. (1899), p. 335. 

3 Diod. XX. 46 ; Plutarch, Dem. 10 f. ; Athen. vi. 253 a ; xv. 697 a. 

* Cassandrea, Michel, No. 323 ; Priene, Inscr. in the Brit. Mus. No, 401 ; 
Samothrace, Michel, No. 350. 

5 For Ptolemy, Diod. xx. 100, 3 f. ; Paus. i. 8, 6 ; Michel, Nos. 595, 1198 ; 
Delamarre, Revue de PMlologie, xx. (1896), p. 103 f. For Seleucus, Haus- 
souUier, Hevue de PMlologie, xxiv. (1900), p. 319 ; Phylarch. ap. Athen. vi. 
254/. ;For the whole subject of the worship of the kings see Beurlier, Dedivinis 
honoribus Alexandra et successoribus eius redditis, Paris, 1890 ; Koruemann, 
Beitrdge zur alten Geschichte, i. Leipzig, 1901. An article of mine on the subject 
appeared in the English Historical Review, October 1901. 



§ 1. The Early Bays 

The course of events in Asia Minor which followed the death of 
Seleucus is mainly hidden from us. We must not imagine that 
by the crime of Ptolemy Keraunos and the desertion of the army 
at Lysimachia the power of the house of Seleucus in the West 
was instantly annihilated. As the news of the catastrophe 
travelled from city to city, it would find in many places a 
population who still saw their best course at this juncture in 
holding by the King of the East, or a garrison which resolved 
to abide faithful to their old master's son. Even in Europe, 
during the short time since Coru-pedion, the house of Seleucus 
had begun to make its supremacy effective. Silver coins are 
found bearing the name of King Seleucus, and stamped with 
the symbols of the city of Callatis (mod. Mangalia in Eou- 
mania).^ And after the death of Seleucus coins are struck for 
a time in parts of Europe with the name of King Antiochus, 
some of them showing the anchor in the centre of the Mace- 
donian shield, a declaration that to the house of Seleucus the 
throne of Philip and Alexander now belongs.^ The news 

^ Babelon, p. xxxviii. There are also coins with the name of Seleucus which 
seem by the monogram to belong to Mesembria (Misirri in Bulgaria) and to Coele 
on the Thracian Chersonese. For Cassandrea, see Polyaen. vi. 7, 2. 

^ Babelon, p. xlviii. Some of these coins have as symbol a boar's jaw-bone, 
the Aetolian mark. In view of the fact that Seleucus died on the threshold of 
Europe, and Antiochus, so far as we know, never crossed thither, tlie house of 
Seleucus can never have exercised any sovereignty in Aetolia. Either then these 
coins were struck by royal authority in a city connected in some way with the 
Aetolian League, as indeed Cius, Lysimachia and Calchedon were at a later 



indeed of what had occurred must have left it quite uncertain 
in many places in whose hands the government of the world 
would now rest. It must have depended upon the way in 
which the authorities in each city, each condottiere who had a 
fortress in charge, each mountain chief, read the signs of the 
times, who of the various claimants was recognized in those 
confused days as master.^ 

Ptolemy Keraunos, with the army and fleet gathered at 
Lysimachia, held indeed a point of vantage for striking at Mace- 
donia. But he had leapt into a dangerous seat. His crime 
had raised all the moral feelings of the Greek world against 
him. Antiochus was bound by filial piety, as well as interest, 
to open war on him. His pretensions to Macedonia made 
both Antigonus Gonatas and Pyrrhus of Epirus his enemies. 
His brother of Egypt might now be alarmed for his own 
security and join his enemies. The last danger Keraunos 
succeeded in conjuring ; he let the Court of Alexandria know 
that he definitely renounced all claims to Egypt and procured 
his brother's neutrality.^ But the attack of Antigonus and 
Antiochus he had to sustain. These two kings seem soon to 
have come to a mutual understanding. There were other 
things besides the common enmity to Keraunos to draw 
Antigonid and Seleucid together. The House of Antigonus 
had been lifted from its abasement after Ipsus by Seleucus ; 

time, or, if they were struck in Aetolia, it must have been on the autliority of 
the Aetolian magistrates, to whom at some moment Antiochus seemed a profitable 
ally. [Since writing the above note I have learnt from Mr. Macdonald that he 
considers the European origin of all these coins as not yet proved.] 

^ All the five Macedonian houses who had fought for supremacy since 315 
still had representatives. The House of Seleuais is rejiresented by Antiochus, 
wliose sujiremacy is acknowledged in Iran and Babylon ; the^owsc of Antigmms 
by Antigonus Gonatas, the son of Demetrius, who is still master in a large part 
of Central and Southern Greece ; through his mother, Phila, Antigonus derives 
blood from Autipater, but the House of Antipater still has one representative at 
any rate in the male line, Antipater, the son of Cassander's brother Philip ; the 
House of Ptolemy is doubly represented, in Europe by Ptolemy Keraunos (whose 
mother, Eurydice, is, like Phila, a daughter of Antipater) and his half-brother 
Meleager, in Egypt by the younger Ptolemy and other brothers ; lastly, the House 
of Lysimachus is represented by the three sons of Arsinoe, Ptolemy, Lysimachus 
and Philip. (Of Alexander, the son of Lysimachus, nothing is heard after the 
death of Seleucus.) 

- Just. xvii. 2, 9. 


Demetrius in his captivity had found at any rate princely 
treatment and security for his life ; Stratonice, the queen of 
Antiochus, was the sister of Antigonus Gonatas. 

Antigonus was nearer the scene of action than his brother- 
in-law and could strike first. The tidings of events at 
Lysimachia brought him hurrying north with a land and naval 
force to occupy Macedonia before Keraunos. The fleet consti- 
tuted by Lysimachus, and including a contingent from Heraclea,^ 
had passed to Keraunos with the army, and this he now 
opposed to the ships of Antigonus. The encounter was a 
victory for Keraunos — a result which the historian of Heraclea 
attributes mainly to the bravery of the Heracleots.- After 
this reverse Antigonus withdrew again to Central Greece, and 
Macedonia was left exposed. 

Any outposts of Seleucid power in Europe had been cut 
off from succour by the defection of the forces at Lysimachia. 
Ptolemy Keraunos succeeded in occupying Macedonia, although, 
if those numismatists are right who assign coins with the name 
of King Antiochus to a European origin, the process must have 
been a gradual one, and adherents of the house of Seleucus 
must have held out for a time here and there. What measures 
the Seleucid court took in the early days of Antiochus to safe- 
guard its interests north of the Taurus, what form its hostilities 
against the new Macedonian king assumed, is unknown to us. 
Antiochus had, as has been said, hurried westward on the news 
of his father's murder, and a war of some sort between Ptolemy 
Keraunos and Antiochus came to pass.^ Antiochus himself 
did not yet cross the Taurus ; he was delayed by the necessity 
of suppressing the revolt in Syria. ^ 

What took place in Asia Minor, in those cities which a 
few months before had hailed Seleucus as liberator, is unre- 
corded. From the few things told us we can conjecture that 
many declared themselves at that crisis adherents of the house 
of Seleucus, that its popularity stood it in good stead. The 

' Either, then, the Heracleot squadron had not been withdrawn from the 
imperial fleet after the rupture of that city with Seleucus, or a contingent had 
been sent after the death of Seleucus to Ptolemy Keraunos, Heraclea being now a 
declared enemy of the house of Seleucus. 

- Memnon IZ = F.H.G. iii. p. 534. 

^ Just. xvii. 2, 10 ; xxiv. 1,8; Trog. Prol. xvii. ■• Michel, No. S25. 



Atheniau colonists in Lemnos erected temples to Antiochus as 
well as to his father.^ If the account of the Ilians a few 
years later can be trusted, they had immediately begun on the 
news of Antiochus' accession to offer sacrifices and prayers on 
his behalf.- But the best evidence that the chances of the 
house of Seleucus seemed good in those days in Asia Minor is 
that Philetaerus of Pergamos now saw his profit in earning its 

This man was a native of the little Greek town of Tios or 
Tieum.^ One account (possibly later court scandal) asserts 
that his mother was a Paphlagonian flute-girl.* At some 
crowded funeral, to which he was carried as a baby, he had 
been crushed in his nurse's arms and rendered impotent.^ In 
spite of his condition his abilities secured him advancement. 
He had first mixed in the political game as a friend of that 
Docimus who had been prominent in the second rank of 
Macedonian chiefs, the lieutenant first of Perdiccas, then of 
Antigonus, and lastly of Lysimachus.^ Philetaerus had 
accompanied his friend in his passages from one camp to 
another. Lysimachus marked him out as a useful instrument. 
He was made warden of the treasure which Lysimachus had 
stored on the strong hill of Pergamos. In the dissensions of 
the family of Lysimachus, Philetaerus had sided with 
Agathocles, and after Agathocles' murder he no longer felt 
himself safe from the vindictive hatred of the queen, Arsinoe. 
He was among those who invoked Seleucus ; the assurance was 
conveyed to Antioch that the warden and the treasure of 
Pergamos were at the King's disposal.''' And now when a 
great blow had been dealt to the house of Seleucus in the 
moment of its triumph, Philetaerus, with a judicious eye for 
the winning side, still showed himself its friend. He begged 

^ Phylarch. ap. Athen. vi. 254/. - Michel, No. 525. 

^ Strabo xii. 543. ■* Caiystius ap. Athen. xiii. 577 b. 

^ Of course the story of his low barbarian origin may be the true one, and 
he may have been just what Pausanias blimtly calls him, a Paphlagonian eunuch 
(Paus. i. 8, 1). In that case the story of the funeral may have been invented 
later, to reconcile by the supposition of an accident his pretended Greek 
nationality with the fact of his condition. [An inscription just published {J.H.S. 
xxii. p. 195) gives the name of his father Attains. The name at any rate is 

« Paus. i. 8, 1. ~' Strabo xiii. 623 ; Paus. i. 10, 4. 


the body of Seleucus from the murderer. Ptolemy put his 
price high, but Philetaerus knew when it was profitable to dip 
his hand into the treasure of Pergamos. He acquired the 
body, himself saw to its cremation, and sent the ashes to 
Antiochus.^ We may be sure that any party in which 
Philetaerus is found has many other adherents in Asia 

We may indeed divine that the Seleucid cause in Asia 
Minor had at that moment to trust rather to the willing 
loyalty or the far-sighted fears of princes and peoples than to 
a display of force. Antiochus was probably obliged to gather 
all his strength to tight for existence in Syria. It was only 
" by many wars," Memnon says, that he recovered " hardly 
and in a diminished form his father's Empire." ^ As soon, 
however, as it could be spared, a body of troops was sent to 
enforce the authority of the Seleucid king in the country 
beyond the Taurus. How near an interest is felt in this 
country is shown by the man who now appears there as 
the King's representative — Patrocles. Only for a moment 
does this distinguished figure appear in Asia Minor to 
vanish again in the darkness which wraps the period. The 
shifting light falls once more upon the Bithynian coast. A 
lieutenant of Patrocles, one Hermogenes of Aspendus, is here 
in command of a force with which he endeavours to bring again 
the revolted Greek cities into allegiance to the Seleucid house. 
Heraclea, since its rupture with Seleucus, had strengthened 
itself by allowing its exiles to make peace with the ruling 
faction and return home, but now, in presence of this 
instrument of compulsion, it thought best to temporize. By 
coming quickly to terms the city saved its fields. A more 
formidable foe of the Greek king was close at hand, the 
Bithynian chieftain, and against him Hermogenes now turned 
his arms. A fight between the King's forces and its ancient 
Bithynian enemy was an event which Heraclea was only 
too willing to bring about by promising Hermogenes its 

The sight of Macedonian armies fleeing down the valleys 
before the tribesmen was almost familiar in Bithynia. It was 

^ App. Syr. 63. '^ Memuon 15 = F.H.G. iii. p. 534. ^ Memuou loc. cit. 


seen once more ere Ziboetes, now an old man of over seventy, 
left the sphere of his triumphs. The Bithynians were upon 
Hermogenes when he least expected them ; he saw that his 
reputation had gone the way of his predecessors. Disdaining 
to survive, he chose at least the death of a brave man.^ 
ZibcEtes aspired to a greatness which went beyond mere 
victories of the spear. He had a comprehension of the value 
of the life which demanded a richer environment than the 
hill-side village : he wished to rival the Greek kings as a 
builder of cities. Before be died he had founded a Zibcetium 
under Mount Lypedrum.^ 

The hostilities between the forces of Antiochus and Ptolemy 
Keraunos did not last long. Either king was too much 
threatened at home not to desire a modus vivendi. And one 
was found which must have marked some frontier between the 
sphere to be dominated from Macedonia and the sphere of 
Seleucid authority.^ 

Perhaps there were fair hopes at that moment of a period 
of tranquillity opening for Seleucid Asia. The dangers which 
had compassed Antiochus at his accession seemed melting 
away. If the house of Seleucus could confine its ambitions 
to Asia, there was no reason why it should fear molestation 
from its rivals. Ptolemy Keraunos, to whom Macedonia had 
been abandoned, had his hands full in that country, crushing 
what remained of the house of Lysimachus, and defending 
himself against his barbarian neighbours ; his brother in 
Egypt was not aggressive ; Antigonus, although checked in 
Central Greece, served to right the balance of power against 

^ Memnon loc. cit. ; cf. ch. 20, p. 537. I follow Niese (ii. p. 75) in taking 
Hermogenes, not Patrocles himself, to be the commander in Bithynia. Dioysen 
understood Patrocles ; Neumann {Hermes xix. pp. 165-185), who follows him, 
admits that "the subject of the sentence can grammatically only be Hermogenes," 
but contends that Patrocles is meant because otherwise we should hear of him 
in the farther course of the war. That argument would be all very well if 
Memnon had been writing a history of the war in Asia Minor as a whole, and 
not simply in so far as it touched Heraclea. 

- Steph. Byz. ; Memnon 20 = F.H.G. iii. p. 537 ; cf. Friinkel, Lischr. vonPerg. 
No. 65. Neither the mountain nor site have yet been identihed. 

^ Trog. Prol. xvii. ; Just. xxiv. 1 ; Droysen ii. p. 621, supposes that Antiochus 
abaudoned by the peace all claims to dominion in Europe, but there is no docu- 
mentary evidence as to its terms. 


the house of Ptolemy ; and lastly, Pyrrhus of Epirus had 
fortunately turned his thoughts westward and quitted the 
scene to plunge into adventures across the Adriatic. His 
brother kings, to get rid of him, were forward to give him 
help — ships, men, elephants ; Antiochus,^ who required all 
the troops he had been able to raise since the defection 
of the grand army to hold his outspread provinces, sent 

And now, at peace without, the house of Seleucus might 
address itself to the task, for which the Greek kings had never 
yet had leisure, the task of bringing into subjection the 
stubborn elements within. Now the strength of a great 
empire might be turned upon self-styled kings like Ziboetes 
and Mithridates, and restive cities taught the true meaning 
of autonomy. 

Whether it was before or after the peace that Patrocles 
took over Asia Minor and the disaster to Hermogenes occurred 
we do not know. It was probably after it that Antiochus 
himself, accompanied by his queen, crossed the Taurus.^ 

The presence of the King probably went far towards 
bringing to an end the anarchic state of things which had 
prevailed in Asia Minor since the death of Seleucus, and give 
his partizans in most places assured supremacy. To bring 
peace to the Hellenic cities and restore authority to his 
house was the double object which Antiochus gave the country 
to understand he set before him. To achieve it, he had to 
make sure of the allegiance of those troops who, in scattered 
garrisons, held the points of vantage, but whom maladroit 
treatment might easily cause to sell their swords to another 
master. Antiochus, if the expressions used by the Ilians 
in an honorific inscription have any truth, dealt ably 
and successfully with the situation.^ But his success did 
not extend to the most troublesome corner of his realm, 

' Opibus quam militibus instructior, Just. xvii. 2, 13. - See Appendix E. 

•' vvv T€ irapayivonevo^ inl Tot's T(57roiis toi)s eirl rdSe tov Tavpov /xera. Tctffijr 
(TttouStjs Kal (piXoTifilai d/xa Kal rais irdXecrii' ttjv dpi]V7)v KarecKevacev, Kal rd 
irpdy/JiaTa Kal ttj/m ^affCKelav eh fiei^u Kal Xa/xirpOT^pav Siadicnv ayq-^oxf, txaXiara. 
H^v Sid rT[]v Idiav dpeTr]v, elra Kal 5ia rrjv tQ/j. <pi\uv Kal tQiv Svvd/xewv ({fyotav. 
Michel, No. 525. 


Antiochus had come into Asia Minor determined to 
avenge Hermogenes and make a supreme effort to vindicate 
the supremacy of Macedonian arms. Ziboetes, the redoubtable 
chieftain, had died full of years, and his house was shaken by 
discords. Xicomedes, his eldest son, had marked himself out 
as the " executioner " of his brothers.^ One of these brothers, 
however, called, like his father, Ziboetes, had contrived to 
escape massacre and make himself master of the Thynian 
part of his father's dominion. It seemed a favourable oppor- 
tunity for the Macedonian government to intervene. But 
Nicomedes, however barbarous, had inherited his father's 
strength of will and understanding. In his predicament he 
boldly reversed the policy of his house and proposed an 
alliance to Heraclea against the Seleucid king. Heraclea, who 
had already negotiated with one barbarian dynast (see p. 123),- 
was not unwilling to listen to the overtures of the Bithynian. 
Nicomedes is now admitted to membership in the anti - 
Seleucid League, and even becomes its head. 

To secure this end, Nicomedes had astutely ceded to 
Heraclea that region which was in his brother's possession. 
This, of course, at once brought the Heracleots into collision 
with Zibcetes, and a sanguinary battle was fought. The city 
gained all it wanted, Memnon says, but Ziboetes continues to 
appear in possession of a part of Bithynia. 

Heraclea was using this moment,^ in which the Macedonian 
government was embarrassed and its Bithynian neighbours 
divided, to extend its power. It set about buying back the 
places which had once been annexed to it but were now 
alienated, Tios, Cierus, Amastris. Into whose hands these 
had fallen is not stated except in the case of the last, where 
a certain Eumenes appears as master. This man is generally 
taken to be the brother or nephew of Philetaerus of Pergamos, 
whose native place Tios was one of the cities which had been 
drawn into the synoikismos of Amastris. Tios had rapidly 
broken away again and renewed its separate existence.^ In 
whose possession Tios and Cierus now were, whether in those 

^ Tots\<pdi% ovk aSe\<pb^ dXXd Sij/utos yeyovui, Memnon 20 = F,H.G. iii. 
p. 537. 

2 Memnon 17 = F. II. G. iii. 535. ^ gtrabo xii. 544. 


of tyrants of their own or of Nicomedes, we are not told — the 
latter is generally assumed. These towns at any rate Hera- 
clea now succeeds in redeeming, but Eumenes, who seems to 
have had some special animus against Heraclea (perhaps he 
was an adherent like Philetaerus of the Seleucid house), 
refused to sell Amastris on any terms. When Heraclea tried 
force, he preferred to make the place over to Ariobarzanes, 
the son of King Mithridates.^ 

Antiochus lost no time in opening war on the Northern 
League. The Seleucid fleet appeared in the neighbourhood of 
the Bosphorus, but the Heracleot squadron manoeuvred against 
it, and no decisive result was obtained. Now, however, fresh 
complications arose. An estrangement between Antiochus and 
Antigonus, his late ally against Ptolemy, came to open war. 
Antigonus at once joined forces with the Northern League. 
There was a good deal of fighting of which we have no account 
in North- Western Asia.^ 

But this phase was not a long one. Antigonus presently 
made peace with his brother-in-law, and left the League to 
maintain the struggle by its own strength.^ 

§ 2. The Gauls 

But already in Europe the game of politicians and kings 
had been confounded by a cataclysm, which swept across old 
landmarks and submerged old feuds and ambitions in a 
universal terror. Ancient Mediterranean civilization lived all 
its life on the edge of a great peril, which it forgot perhaps 
between the moments of visitation, but by which it ultimately 
perished. From time to time the forests and fens of Central 
Europe spilt upon it some of their chaotic, seething peoples. 
They passed — wild-eyed, jabbering strangers — over a land not 

1 Memnon 1% = F.H.G. iii. 535. 

^ Memnon \9> = F.H.G. iii. 535; Trogns, Prol. xxiv. Antiochus begins the 
war with the League before his (Antiochus') rupture with Antigonus (oiVw 
avppayds ' AvTL-ybvi^ : of. Die Cass, xlviii. 28, crweppixiyoTuv . . . aiVwi' f(s t6i> 
■n-oXe/xov). There is a curious mistranslation in Droysen iii. 185, " Antiochos 
attaqua Nicomede avantqu'il {i.e. Nicomede) cut fait sa jonction avec" Antigone." 

^ Just. XXV. 1, 1. See Appendix F. 


theirs, which they saw only as a place to devour and destroy. 
Such a visitation the Greeks knew four centuries before, when 
Cimmerians and Treres had burst upon Asia Minor and left 
a memorial in the elegies of Callinus. Such a visitation again 
had come a century before to Italy, when the Gauls had almost 
stamped the infant city rising on the Tiber out of existence. 
They were hordes of Gauls, or, as the Greeks called them, 
Galatians, who now poured southward over the Balkans. 
Ptolemy Keraunos reaped his reward for seizing the Mace- 
donian throne in having first to meet the shock of the invasion. 
Less than a year from the time of his deed of blood his head 
was waving on the point of a Gaulish spear ^ (spring 280). 
That summer all the country-side of Macedonia was overrun. 
With winter the wave ebbed, leaving a tract of desolation 
behind it. The Greek world waited breathlessly for next 
year. Although not immediately threatened, the Seleucid 
king shared the general anxiety. Apart even from selfish 
motives the deliverance of Hellas was a cause in which it 
flattered the vanity of any Greek king to shine. Antiochus 
sent a contingent to take part in the defence.^ The invasion 
came with terrific force (279). The Greeks massed at 
Thermopylae. It was the road over Mount Oeta which the 
five hundred men of Antiochus were posted to hold. There 
in fact the Gauls at one moment directed their assault, and 
the contingent distinguished itself in repelling them, with the 
loss, however, of its commander, Telesarchus, Then the 
barbarians succeeded in turning the Greek position by the 
pass which Xerxes had traversed, and Central Greece was 
overwhelmed. But now the defence prevailed. At Delphi a 
Greek force inflicted a crushing defeat upon the horde, and the 
shattered remnants withdrew. Greece was delivered.^ 

The Seleucid court had, no doubt, been following the 
struggle with anxiety. So far no Gauls had crossed the sea. 
But they were coming perilously near. A body under 
Leonnorius and Lutarius had broken off from the rest before 

^ Just. xxiv. 5, 7. 

2 Niese (ii. p. 22, note 6) supposes, against the statement of Pausanias, that 
this contingent was one of the Seleucid garrisons in Europe. I do not see why 
Antiochus should be held incapable of sending 500 men across the Aegean. 

^ Paus. X. 20 f. 


the invasion of Greece and turned eastward. They traversed 
Thrace, levying blackmail as they went. They pushed on to 
the Bosphorus and harried the territory of Byzantium. 
Heraclea and the other allies of Byzantium sent help in vain. 
But the narrow strip of sea seemed to oppose an impassable 
barrier. They had no boats or skill to make them, and 
Byzantium refused to give them any assistance. The Gauls 
next tried the straits at the other end of the Propontis, the 
Hellespont. They seized Lysimachia by a ruse and overran 
the Chersonese. But here the Seleucid governor, Antipater, 
was watching them from the Asiatic shore, and would not give 
them unconditional passage. Then a great part of the horde 
returned to the Bosphorus under Leonnorius ; a part remained 
with Lutarius opposite Antipater.^ 

It was the moment when the Northern League was left 
by Antigonus still in grapple with Antiochus. To either side 
perhaps the thought occurred of hiring these terrible wild men 
against the other. Antipater had entered into some sort of 
negotiation with them, but had not been able to make a secure 
bargain. Nicomedes, when Leonnorius returned to the 
Bosphorus, was more successful. A treaty was agreed to by 
the Gaulish chief, in which he placed himself absolutely under 
Nicomedes' orders and made himself an instrument of the 
League.^ His bands were at once conveyed across the 
Bosphorus. Meanwhile, Lutarius also had seized some boats 
in which the agents of Antipater had come over. With these 
in a few days he got his following over the Hellespont, whether 
Antipater would or not, and turning northwards rejoined 
Leonnorius. The terrified inhabitants of Asia Minor soon 
learnt that the Galatians were in the land (278-277).^ 

The League, with its redoubtable auxiliaries, first turned 
upon Zibcetes, who had probably an understanding with the 
Seleucid court. The Thynian country was given up to ravage 
and massacre. All that could be moved was carried off by 
the Galatians.^ But they had soon passed beyond Nicomedes' 

' Memnon 19 = F.ff.G. iii. p. 535 ; Livy xxxviii. 16. 

^ The cities of the League are enumerated — Byzantium, Tios, Heraclea, 
Calchedon, and Cierus, the towns which Heraclea had just leannexed still 
figuring as autonomous communities. 

2 Paus. X. 23, 14 ; Trog. Prol. xxv. * Memnon \9=F.E.G. iii. p. 535. 


control and left the gutted Bithynian valleys far behind them. 
They knew neither master nor law outside their own horde, 
and turned to right or left wherever the sight of smiling lands 
and villages provoked their appetite. No men felt themselves 
secure or knew whether they might not any day see the 
frightful apparition of these strong men from the north in 
their familiar fields. 

The figure of the Galatian, as the Greeks of Asia saw him, 
is given us in the descriptions and in the remains of their art. 
We are shown the great strapping bodies, sometimes naked, 
sometimes cased in a strange garb, shirts and trousers of many 
colours, plaids brooched on the shoulder, the necklets and 
bracelets of gold, the straw-coloured hair stiffened with grease 
till it stood up on the head like the bristles of a Satyr, the 
huge shields which covered a man's whole body, the swords as 
long as a Greek javelin, the pikes whose broad iron heads 
were longer than a Greek sword. We are told of their full- 
chested voices, their loud boastings and extravagant gestures, 
the unreasoning frenzy with which they flung themselves into 
battle, and which seemed to make them insensible of wounds, 
their unbridled love of wine, the nameless abominations of 
their camps,^ 

In such guise did the children of the North introduce 
themselves twenty-two centuries ago to the civilized, that is 
to say the Hellenic, world. To the men of the Mediterranean 
they seemed the embodiment of brute and brainless force, 
which could by its bulk for a while overbear the higher 
qualities, but which the " firm, deliberate valour " and 
disciplined intelligence of the Hellenic character^ must in 
the end subdue or use as an instrument for its own ends. 
On the one side seemed mere volume of force, on the other 
the mind, by which alone force could be efficiently directed. 
But what if those Northern races of abounding physical 
vitality learnt some day of the Southern to think ? That 
question it probably occurred to no one to ask twenty-two 
centuries ago. 

The body of Galatian s which had entered Asia numbered, 

^ Paus. X. 19 f. ; Diod. v. 26 f. ; cf. Brumi. Geschichte der griechischen Kunstler 
(ed. 2) vol. i. p. 311 f. - Cf. Paus. x. 21, 2. 


we are told, only 20,000 men, and of these only half were 
combatants.^ But the terror of their name caused the heart 
of the people of the land to melt. Their mobility, their 
elusiveness, and the extent of their depredations made them 
seem like a swarm of hornets that filled the land.^ Of what 
the native peasantry suffered there is no record. Only a trace 
here and there — some words on a worn stone or a tale gathered 
long after from the lips of the people by writers curious of 
those things — preserves some memorial of the agonies of the 
Greek cities. An inscription ^ shows us Erythrae paying 
blackmail to Leonnorius. At Miletus they had a legend of 
how the Galatians had caught the women of the city outside 
the walls on the feast of the Thesmophoria and carried off all 
who could not pay the required ransom,* and how seven 
Milesian maidens had destroyed themselves to escape shame.^ 
Some lines of the poetess Anyta of Tegea are preserved ^ 
which purport to be an epitaph on three Milesian maidens 
who had won glory by this act. At Ephesus they told the 
same story of an Ephesian girl which was told of Tarpeia at 
Eome.'^ At Celaenae they told a story of how, when the 
Galatians had beset the city, its river-god Marsyas had risen 
in flood against them, while the air was filled with a mysterious 
sound of flutes, and the barbarians had been driven backward.^ 
At Themisonium the local story clung to a neighbouring 
cavern. Heracles, Apollo and Hermes had appeared in a 
dream to the magistrates, and revealed this cavern to them 
as a hiding-place for the whole population from the Galatian 
terror.^ However much fiction may go to make up such 
legends, they show at least how the memory of those days of 
fear was burnt into the popular imagination. 

The whole question of the Trans-Tauric country, as it lay 
before the house of Seleucus, was materially affected by the 
introduction of this new element. The entrance of the 
Galatians marks the beginning of a new phase. Hitherto 

' Liv. xxxviii. 16, 9. 

2 Just. XXV. 2, 8. =' Michel, No. 503. 

* Parthenius, wepl ipwr. irad-qix. viii. i. (Sakolowski) cited by Haussoullier 
Revue de Phil. xxiv. (1900), p. 321. ^ Jerome, Adv. Jov. i. 41. 

6 Anth. Palat. vii. 492. '^ Plutarcli, Parall. Min. 15. 

» Paus. X. 30, 9. 9 Ibid. 32, 4. 


we have seen Greek rule, as represented successively by 
Alexander, Antigonus, Lysimachus and the house of Seleucus, 
always promising to bring the country under effectual govern- 
ment, but defeated over and over again by some apparently 
accidental occurrence — the early death of Alexander, war after 
war between the Successors, changes of dynasty. There seemed 
no absolute impossibility that a Greek house should succeed 
in the task if it could only have a period of freedom from 
external complications. But now the task had become 
infinitely more difficult. For its achievement it was an 
indispensable condition that the Galatians should be not 
only defeated but exterminated or subdued. It was not so 
much that they hampered the paramount authority as an 
independent power ; they formed indeed no state with a 
consistent policy of its own. They hampered it — as govern- 
ments in the East are chiefly hampered by such unassimilated 
elements — by being always there to furnish material to any 
antagonist of the paramount power. All the opponents with 
whom the house of Seleucus had hitherto to deal, all future 
rebels, had now an unfailing source of strength on which to 
draw. It was not as a new state but as a great mass of 
mercenary soldiers encamped in the land that the Galatians — 
selling themselves now to one employer, now to another, one 
part of them to the Seleucid king, another to the King's 
enemies — kept all the conflicting powers in Asia Minor in 
unstable balance and prevented the establishment of a single 
supreme lord. 

To the Greek cities the result was twofold. On the one 
hand they had to suffer from the incursions of the barbarians 
or pay blackmail ; on the other the power of the kings to 
curtail their autonomy was restricted. According as they 
looked at the matter from this side or that, they saw in the 
barbarians a danger and in the kings the saviours of Hellenism, 
or in the kings a danger and in the barbarians a safeguard.^ 
It would seem that at first it was the former aspect which 
presented itself; the early days of the GaUic invasion were 
probably the worst, before repeated blows had pushed the 
Galatians towards the interior ; and the cities at that time 
' Memnonl9=i^.^.ff. iii. p. 536. 


may have sincerely regarded the kings as fighting in their 
cause against the barbarian. Then as the strokes told and 
the kings gained a certain advantage, the cities began to 
forget their sufferings and to look with pleasure on the 
Galatian adversary who made the King's victory incomplete. 

For Asia Minor did not contrive, like Greece, to throw off 
again the strange element which had entered its system. The 
Galatians came into Asia to stay. Probably from the first 
moment of their appearance Antiochus set what forces he 
could dispose of (for he was short of men) ^ in action against 
them. There was also a certain power of resistance in the 
Greek cities. Meeting with these rebuffs, the Galatians were 
gradually obliged to put a limit to their vague wanderings and 
become more or less settled on definite territory of their own. 
Thence they might still indeed raid their neighbours, but they 
had made a step from a nomad towards a settled life. The 
inland regions of Phrygia, inhabited by a peasantry in 
scattered villages, long accustomed to bow to foreign masters, 
Persian and Macedonian, lay an easy conquest. And here the 
Galatians besran to make themselves at home. Their bands 
had consisted of men of three tribes or nations, and each of 
these took to itself a special territory. They lay one beside 
another along the north of the central table-land, around the 
ancient Phrygian towns and the monuments of old Asiatic 
religions. The Trocmi came to possess the most easterly 
territory with its centre across the Halys at Tavium ; the next 
tribe, the Tectosages, had their centre in Ancyra; the third, 
the Tolistoagii ^ in Pessinus, where from time immemorial the 
Great Mother of the Phrygians was worshipped with fanatic 
rites. It was with the last, as the most westerly, that the 
Greeks had most to do.^ 

^ Just. xvii. 2, 13 ; Lucian, Zeuxis, 8. 

2 So the inscriptions ; writers call them Tolistobogii. 

* There is some divergence in the account of these settlements. The state- 
ment above, being that generally accepted, is taken from Strabo xii. 567 ; Plin. 
V. § 146. Livy (xxxviii. 16, 12) gives the Trocmi the shore of the Hellespont. 
Memnon gives the Tolistobogii Tavium, the Trocmi Ancyra, and the Tectosages 
Pessinus. Pliny, who gives the towns as above, contradicts himself in another 
sentence by saying that the territory of the Tectosages lay to the east in Cap- 
padocia, and giving the Trocmi Maeonia {sic) and Paphlagonia. Possibly all 
this confusion arose from the Galatians changing their seats repeatedly before 


"We can no longer trace the process by which the Galatians 
were brought to settle down, nor say when or by what steps 
the organization sketched by Strabo ^ took shape. When the 
Galatians first came to Asia, they were led, according to 
Memnon,^ by seventeen chiefs, of whom Leonnorius and 
Lutarius were the first in rank. In Strabo a much more 
regular organization appears. Each of the three tribes is 
subdivided into four tetrarchies ; every tetrarchy has a chief 
(rerpdp'^Tj'i) of its own, and, under him, a judge {hiKaarrj^), a 
marshal {a-rparoc^vka^), and two under-marshals {vTroarparo- 
<f)vXaKe<;). The twelve tetrarchs are supreme as a body over 
the whole nation, and are associated with a Council of 300 
men, who meet in a certain sacred place (Apvvdfierov). The 
Council alone has jurisdiction in cases of murder ; in all other 
cases, the tetrarchs and judges. The organization of the 
horde must have been much looser when it first overspread 
Asia Minor. 

The house of Seleucus played an honourable part in these 
days as the champion of civilization against the Gauls. It 
was a role in which all the Greek kings were anxious to 
shine. Even Ptolemy II, when he contrived to make away 
with a mutinous contingent of Gallic mercenaries, was depicted 
by his court-poet as sharing with the Delphic god himself the 
glory of vanquishing these " late-born Titans from the utter 
West." ^ To such a glory Antiochus might have made out a 
better claim. It was indeed as Soter, the " Saviour," or even 
(if we may judge by his cult at Seleucia-in-Pieria *) as 
Apollo Soter, that he was remembered.^ He was so called, 
says Appian, because " he drove out the Galatians who invaded 
Asia." ^ This Antiochus did not do, but he did win one or 
more victories, which doubtless had an effect in stemming the 

they finally settled down, or fractions of the three different nations may have 
remained mingled with each other, just as in Asia Minor to-day Turks, Armenians, 
Kurds, Kizil-bashis, etc., live side by side. 

^ xii. 567. 2 ch. 15 = F.H.G. iii. p. 536. 

^ 6\j/l'yovoL TtT^i/es a<j> ecriripov efrxariwj'ros, Callim. Hymn. iv. 174 ; cf. Schol, 

■» C.I.G. 4458. 

5 It is not proved that he bore the surname during his life ; on the other 
hand, the argument from silence against his having done so is worth very 
little, where our documents are so scanty. 

^ A pp. Syr. 65. 


Galatian raids on the coast and relieving certain districts. 
His Gallic War seems to have been sung in an epic by 
Simonides of Magnesia,^ but without thereby securing any 
immortal record. Only the story of one battle, in which the 
Galatians were scared by the sight of the King's elephants, is 
preserved in its popular form by Lucian. 

On the night before the battle (so it runs) the King 
dreamed a dream. He saw the great Alexander standing 
beside him, and then and there Alexander himself gave out the 
password for the coming day : " Health ! " — the ordinary word 
at parting." Antiochus' heart failed him as the battle drew 
on. The host of the Galatians counted forty thousand horse 
and a great array of chariots, eighty of them scythed, and 
against all this he had only a small body of troops to set, 
hastily collected and for the most part light-armed. But the 
tactician, Theodotas of Ehodes, bade him be of good cheer. 
The King had sixteen elephants, and Theodotas instructed 
him to set these in the fore-part of the battle. The device 
answered. For when the elephants moved out, the Galatian 
horses became mad with fear and swerved backwards. The 
scythed chariots tore their own ranks. The Macedonians and 
Greeks followed up with an immense slaughter. Only a few 
of the Galatians escaped into the hills. The Macedonian army 
gathered about their King and crowned him victor, raising the 
shout of Kcdlinikos. But the eyes of Antiochus were full of 
bitter tears. " Shame, my men," he broke out, " is all that we 
have got this day. Our deliverance we owe to these sixteen 
brutes. But for them, where should we have been ? " And 
the King commanded that the trophy should bear nothing but 
the figure of an elephant.^ 

Whether the action was quite as great an affair as it 
appears through this epic medium may be questionable. But 
we may believe that Antiochus did win a notable victory. 
Against such an enemy as the Galatians, however, one victory 
is not likely to have gone far, and what the success of 

^ Suid. Hifxcjvidris Mdyvyfs 'Z.LirijXov, eiroiroios, yiyovev eir' 'Avtioxov tov ^LeydXov 
kXtjO^ptos Kal yeypa(pe ras 'Avnoxov rov Me7dXoK irpd^eii Kal tt]v trpos TaXdra's 
/idxri") o'''^ fJt-€Td tCiv iXe<pdvTuiv tt]v ittttov avrQv ^cpdapev. Obviously this is the 
celebrated battle fought by Antiochus the First, not by Antiochus the Great. 

' Lucian, Pro Lapsu inter Salut. 9. ^ Ibid. Zeuxis, 8. 


Antiochus was in other parts of the war we can only divine 
from the reputation he left behind him. Whatever it may 
have been, it was anything but thorough. The Galatians 
continued to be a menace to the inhabitants of the sea-board, 
and, according to Livy ^ not only the small communities, but 
even the Seleucid government was reduced at last to pay 

§ 3. Foreign Policy : Antigonus and Ptolemy 

A connected narrative of the reign of Antiochus I after 
the Gallic invasion can hardly be pieced together out of our 
fragmentary materials, but the general lines of its policy may 
be discerned. As in Asia Minor, so in the neighbouring 
realms the Galhc invasion marks the end of an epoch. The 
chaotic struggle between the five Macedonian houses is con- 
cluded. Two Macedonian kingdoms with firm outlines are 
now the principal foreign powers with which the house of 
Seleucus has to do. The houses of Antipater and Lysimachus 
are heard of no more after the confusion which follows the 
death of Ptolemy Keraunos in Macedonia (278-276), when 
Ptolemy, the son of Lysimachus, and Antipater, the grandson 
of the old Antipater, appear for a moment among the ephemeral 
kings.^ Then Antigonus Gonatas strikes in from Central 
Greece and gradually brings under all hostile elements in 
Macedonia — rival factions and Gallic swarms. 

By 276 he stands before the world as acknowledged King 
in the Macedonian fatherland. The object for which the first 
Antigonus had vainly striven his grandson now finally attains. 
The house of Antipater disappears, except in so far as 
Antigonus may claim by virtue of his mother Phila to 
represent that also, or those kings of the Seleucid house who 
descend from Phila's daughter Stratonice.^ The house of 

1 xxxviii. 16, 13. ^ Diod. xxii. 4. 

^ That such claims were considered is shown by the cases in which names 
characteristic of one house appear in another house connected with it by female 
descent, e.g. the name Lysimachus in the Ptolemaic royal family, the name 
Antipater in the Seleucid ; especially by the names Demetrius and Philip {i.e. the 
Antigonid names), which we shall find the later Seleucids taking as family names 
of their own. 


Lysimachus also disappears. It has been conjectured that the 
Ptolemy son of Lysimachus, whose daughter is appointed 
high-priestess of the Seleucid queen in Asia Minor about thirty 
years after/ is the man who had once been for a few days King 
of Macedonia. 

Henceforth the house of Antigonus takes root in Macedonia, 
as the house of Ptolemy has done in Egypt and the house of 
Seieucus in Asia. These are the three powers who play the 
leading part in the lands of the eastern Mediterranean during 
the rest of the third century before Christ, till all relations 
are changed by being drawn within the widening sphere of 

If these powers grouped themselves in two opposing camps 
it meant that two of them must gravitate together against the 
third. We accordingly find a close understanding during all 
this period between the Seleucid and the Antigonid houses 
against the Ptolemaic, with which one or other of them, if not 
both together, is continually at war. 

They were, as we have seen, already connected in the 
person of queen Stratonice. The beginning of this period of 
friendship is marked by another marriage. The daughter 
whom Stratonice, before being passed on to Antiochus, had 
borne to Seieucus was now of marriageable age. She was 
called Phila, after her maternal grandmother, the daughter of 
Antipater. Soon after her uncle Antigonus had established 
himself on the Macedonian throne she was sent over to 
Macedonia to become his wife. It was a wedding distinguished 
apparently by the illustrious throng of philosophers and poets 
whom the Stoic king called together, a company in which 
Aratus of Soli made a brilliant figure.' 

Ptolemy II Philadelphus occupied a strong position which 
both his brother-kings felt as a menace to themselves. He 
had in Egypt a territory which experience had shown to be 
fenced against all attack, and which by its natural wealth and 
its position on the world's highways, brought him an immense 
revenue, while its limited area allowed it to be held in the 
grip of a far more thorough centralization at a far less expense 
than the sprawling provinces of the Seleucid. But if his realm 

1 See p. 178. ^ j)Iq„^ L^gj-t. vii. 1, 8 ; Fit. Aral. ; Michel, No. 1295. 



had been confined to Egypt the other courts might have 
regarded him as inoffensive. It was as the great naval power 
that he aroused their hostility. As a naval base for the 
eastern Mediterranean, Egypt under the conditions of those 
days was unmatched. It had in Alexandria one sujfficient 
harbour, and the rest of its short coast protected by lagoons. 

For the timber indeed necessary to ship-building, Egypt 
had to look without, but in the dependent island of Cyprus, 
the southern Lebanon, and the coasts of Asia Minor, Ptolemy 
possessed an ample supply. A power which created a sea- 
empire, spreading its influence over all the coasts and islands 
of the Levant, and interfering in the politics of Greece and 
Ionia, was not a power which either Seleucid or Antigonid 
could tranquilly behold. 

It is no longer possible to trace the stages by which 
the house of Ptolemy acquired its possessions over-seas. A 
beginning had already been made by the first king. Ptolemy 
Soter had finally reannexed Cyprus about 294, and had brought 
under his protectorate the Confederation of the Cyclades.^ It 
was in war with Antiochus, doubtless, that Ptolemy II won 
many of the strong places along the coasts of Asia. The 
immediate origin of war between the two kingdoms is shrouded 
in obscurity. The relations between them at Antiochus' 
accession were friendly and regulated by an express treaty 
made under Seleucus. It seems to have been on the side of 
Antiochus that the status quo was first disturbed. 

One of his daughters, called after her Bactrian grandmother 
Apama, Antiochus had given in marriage to Magas, the half- 
brother of Ptolemy, who ruled the Cyrenaic province as 
viceroy.^ Some time after the Gallic invasion ^ Magas declared 
himself independent and took up an attitude hostile to Egypt. 

1 Michel, No. 373. Niese (ii. p. 101 f.) supposes that Ptolemy I also re- 
annexed after Ipsus the places he had occupied in 309 on the coast of Asia Minor. 
For his possessions in Caria, Niese cites Jerome on Daniel, 11, 5, "tantae 
potientiae, ut . . . Cariam quoque obtineret, et multas insulas urbesque et 
regiones, de 'quibus non est huius temporis scribere." For his possession of 
Halicarnassus, Niese cites Ltiscr. of the Brit. AIus. No. 906 (Michel, No. 1198). 
But is it certain that this inscription belongs to the reign of the Ptolemy I ? 

^ At the accession of Antiochus, Apama cannot have been more than ten or 
eleven, Wilcken in Pauly- IVissowa under " Apama " (3). 

^ Because Ptolemy has a corps of Gallic mercenaries. 


Antiochus soon after abjured his neutrality and drew his sword 
against Ptolemy in alliance with his son-in-law.^ 

Such is the order of events in the sketch of Pausanias, 
but of their real connexion, the diplomatic to-and-fro which 
accompanied them, we can only guess. We do not know 
whether it was Antiochus or Magas to whom the initiative in 
the rupture with Egypt should be assigned. There were at 
any rate more selfish reasons to make Antiochus break with 
Ptolemy than sympathy with his daughter's husband, and it 
may well be that Apama carried with her to Cyrene the 
instigations to revolt. 

The date of the beginning of hostilities between Antiochus 
and Ptolemy is fixed by Babylonian inscriptions to the year 
38 of the Seleucid era (October 274-October 273 B.C.).' Its 
effects were abundantly felt in the country beyond the Taurus, 
upon whose coasts Ptolemy was able, in virtue of his supremacy 
at sea, to throw his armies, or at any rate swarms of privateers.^ 
It was a war in which neither struck a vital part of his 
adversary, which dribbled on, with pauses and local variations, 
till it must have seemed the normal state of things. 

To the house of Seleucus it meant a fresh complication in 
the Trans-Tauric problem. There was now an external foe 
pressing from without, to add to the rebellious elements within. 
It was such a complication as the house of Achaemenes had 
found in the attack of the European Greeks. That had com- 
pelled them for long periods to abandon the coasts which the 
Asiatic Greeks inhabited, and the house of Seleucus now found 
its hold on the coasts become exceedingly precarious and 
interrupted. Ptolemy, of course, could use the old cry of 
Hellenic autonomy against the master in possession. 

To attempt a chronology of such a war — a multitude of 
local struggles, strong places wrested now by one side, now by 
the other, factions oscillating in the cities — would probably be 
difficult if we had all the facts. Under the circumstances all 
one can do is to indicate the traces of Ptolemaic rule along 
the coasts. Our chief literary authority is unfortunately a 

1 Paus. i. 7, 3. 

2 Zeitschr. fur Assyr. vii. p. 232. The era in use in Syria had as its starting- 
point the autumn of 312 ; that of Bubylouia tlie autumn of 311. 

^ Paus. i. 7, 3. 


court-poet, whose phrases cannot be taken too severely. When 
Theocritus says that Ptolemy " gives the signal to all the 
Pamphylians and the spearmen of Cilicia, to the Lycians and 
the war-like Carians," ^ it need mean no more than that 
Ptolemaic garrisons were posted at strong points along the 
southern coast — places Hke Sehnus and Coracesium — and that 
many of the cities of Lycia and Caria had been drawn into 
the Ptolemaic alliance. 

To begin with the east, with Eough Cilicia — the end, as 
the ancients reckoned, of the Taurus barrier — the struggle 
between Seleucid and Ptolemy has here left its mark in the 
names of the coast towns. Near the river Lamus, after which, 
to the west, Ptough Cilicia was held to begin,^ we hear of an 
Antioch.^ Then we have Seleucia on the Calycadnus (mod. 
Selefkeh), where there is still room between mountains and 
sea for a large city — founded, according to its legend, by 
Seleucus Nicator himself.* Next come Ptolemaic towns,' Bere- 
nice,^ called after the wife of the first or the third Ptolemy, 
and Arsinoe,^ called after Arsinoe Philadelphus, the sister-wife 
of Ptolemy II, the sometime wife of Lysimachus, or possibly 
after the sister-wife of Ptolemy IV. Then again we have a 
Seleucid foundation in Antioch-near-Cragus.^ 

On passing to Pamphylia we are confronted at the entrance 
by a Ptolemais,^ and then again in the plain about the mouth 
of the Eurymedon comes a Seleucia.^ 

In Lycia the Ptolemaic influence seems to have become 
especially consolidated. Patara, the harbour-town of Xanthus, 
was enlarged by Ptolemy II as another Arsinoe, though in 

1 Idyl. x\ii. 88, 89. ^ strabo xiv. 671. 

^ Antioch, 'lo-auptas t) Aa/xwrtj, Steph. Byz. see Droysen ii. p. 724. This 
rrvay, of course, be a foundation of Antiochus Epiphanes or one of the later 
kings. [Ramsay identifies it with Antioch-on-Cragus, Hist. Geog. p. 380.] 

■• Steph. Byz. ; Strabo xiv. 670 ; Amm. Marc. xiv. 8, 2. 

^ Steph. Byz.; Stacliasmus Maris Magni (Miiller, Frag. Geog. &>-aec. i.), § 190. 

« Steph. Byz. 

7 Ptolemy v. 8. 2 ; for Ciagus, Strabo xiv. 669. The site of this Antioch is 
thought to be marked by the remains of an aqueduct between Selinti and Khara- 
dran [Murray, Asia Minor (1895), p. 176]. Droysen gives further an Antioch 
irapdXios and anotlier Antioch which appear to belong to Cilicia and be different 
from any of those mentioned above, but whose sites cannot be fixed. 

8 Strabo xiv. 667. " Siadia^mus, % 216. 


this case, no less than when her former husband called Ephesus 
after her, the queen's name had too famous a name to compete 
with ever to obtain currency.^ The possession of Patara prob- 
ably implies authority over the whole Lycian Confederation.^ 
Caria is named by Jerome among the possessions of the second 
Ptolemy.^ The towns, more strictly Carian, lying inland, were, 
as we shall see, held by Antiochus, but we can prove Ptolemaic 
possession in the chief Greek towns of the coast and some of 
the adjoining islands. Caunus is found as the station of a 
Ptolemaic fleet at a moment soon after the marriage of Ptolemy 
and his sister Arsinoe (before 274).* Cos, together with the 
shrine on the Triopian promontory, the religious centre of the 
Dorian Body, received special attention from Ptolemy, as 
befitted his birthplace.^ At Halicarnassus the Ptolemaic 
supremacy is evidenced by inscriptions.^ 

The Ionian cities Antiochus I seems, as a wliole, to have 
been able to retain, Samos, indeed, had been acquired by 
Ptolemy some time before 274,'^ and gave the Egyptian fleets 
an important station in the Aegean, and even on the mainland 
Miletus, in spite of the favours which the house of Seleucus 
had showered upon it, had to yield to the superior force of the 
king of Egypt. The day came when it was the Ptolemaic 
house whom the obsequious demos honoured at Branchidae.^ 
At the neighbouring Heraclea also the ascendancy of the 
Ptolemaic house is indicated by an inscription assigned to the 

1 Strabo xiv. 666. 

^ I know of no other traces of Ptolemaic rule in Lycia except this regenera- 
tion of Patara which can be certainly ascribed to the time of the second Ptolemy, 
i.e. of his wars with Antiochus I and Antiochus II. Niese (ii, ji. 102, note 3), 
Mahaffy {Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 487), Haussoullier {Revue de Philol. xxiv. 
(1900), p. 324, note 2) hold that the two decrees of Lissa (Michel, Nos. 548, 549), 
dated the eighth and eleventh years of Ptolemy, the son of Ptolemy, belong to the 
reiga of Philadelphus, i.e. to 278-277 and 275-274 B.C., not to that of Ptolemy 
III Euergetes, as Hicks {J.H.S. ix. (1888) 88 f.) and Michel {loc. cit.) suppose. 
Niese argues from the formula describing the King, but it seems to me not 
improbable that a shorter formula might still be used locally when a longer one 
had come into use in more central quarters. 

^ OoTnment. on Daniel, 11. 

* Athen. xiv. 621 a. ^ Theoc. Idyl. xvii. 66. 

« Michel, Nos. 595, 1198. '^ See Niese ii. 104, note 2. 

* This inscription, recently published by Haussoullier {Revue de Philol. xxiv. 
(1900), p. 323), is the first clear evidence which has turned up of Ptolemaic influ- 
ence at Miletus under Philadelphus. 


reign of the second Ptolemy.^ But north of the Latmian Bay 
evidences of Ptolemaic rule are not found till Antiochus II 
sits upon the Seleucid throne. In an inscription,^ which must 
be later than 269,^ the Ionian Body addresses itself to the 
Seleucid court.* 

This arrest of the Ptolemaic conquest at the Latmian Bay 
was no doubt due to the action of the Antigonid king. In 
272, or soon after ,^ Antigonus joined in the war, and his fleets 
proved themselves more than a match for the Ptolemaic. His 
great victory off Cos ^ created a balance of power in the 
Aegean, where hitherto Ptolemy had been sole master. This 
diversion naturally weakened the pressure of the Ptolemaic 
forces in Asia Minor, 

§ 4. Government of the first Seleucids in Asia Minor 

"We turn now from considering how Asia Minor was 
affected by the foreign relations of the Seleucid court to 
examine what can still be deciphered of the workings of 
Seleucid government within. 

It is perhaps not merely due to the imperfection of our 
evidence, to the fact that the part of Seleucid history which 
affected the Greeks stood the best chance of being recorded, 
that Asia Minor rather than Syria or the East seems, till after 
Magnesia, the chief sphere of Seleucid activity. One may 
well believe that it was the part of their dominions to which 
the Seleucid kings attached the greatest value. It is never 

^ Rayet, Revue de Philol. xxiii. (1899), p. 275 ; Haussoullier, ih. xxiv. (1900), 
p. 323. 

2 Michel, No. 486. 

* Because the j'oung Antiochus appears in it as co-king, and Babylonian 
inscriptions of the year 269 show Seleucus still associated with his father. 
Wilcken, Pauly- Wissowa, i. p. 2452. 

* The thirteen cities (see Michel, No. 485) which formed the Ionian Body 
were Miletus, Myus, Priene, Ephesus, Colophon, Lebedus, Teos, Clazomenae, 
Phocaea, Samos, Chios, Erythrae, Smyrna. Of these Miletus, Samos, and per- 
haps Erythrae (see Niese ii. p. 79, note 2) were or had been in Ptolemaic posses- 
sion, but the majority of the cities must be represented in an embassy to 
Antiochus, which claims to speak in the name of the Body. The inscription 
was found at Clazomenae ; the list of the envoys hasjperished after the first two, 
the envoys of Ephesus and Lebedus. 

•''' Just. XX vi. 1, 1. ^ The references in Niese ii. p. 131. 


so inappropriate to speak of the dynasty as " Syrian " as in 
these earlier reigns. We cannot even perceive that Antioch 
on the Orontes held at that time any primacy over the 
capitals of the West and the East, over Sardis and the 
Babylonian Seleucia.^ 

Sardis since the days of the Lydian kingdom had held the 
position of capital of the country north of the Taurus. It 
had always been the chief seat of the power ruling the 
interior, Persian or Macedonian, unless perhaps it was 
superseded by the Phrygian capital, Celaenae, under Antigonus. 
Under the house of Seleucus, Sardis enjoyed its old dignity. 
It was there that the government archives were kept.^ It had 
been transformed from a barbarian to a Hellenic city.^ 

In the absence of the King, the governor of Lydia 
exercises a general authority over the whole Trans -Tauric 

Of the satrapies into which that domain' was divided 
under the Seleucids we have no complete statement. According 
to the system which Alexander took over from the Persians, 
it would have formed six, Greater Phrygia, Hellespontine 
Phrygia, Lydia, Caria, Lycia, and Cappadocia. Of these only 
two can be proved by express mention under the Seleucids, 
Hellespontine Phrygia (?; e</)' '^Wr^cnrovTov aarpaTreia) ^ and 
Lydia.^ We have also a satrapy mentioned, which appears to 
be that of Greater Phrygia.'^ 

There is no reason to suppose that the Seleucids, while 

^ It -would therefore be as appropriate to call the Seleueid kings Lydians as 
Syrians. An expression in Justin, if it corresponds with anything in his sources, 
tends to show that Asia Minor was in fact considered the real home of the 
earlier Seleucids. Seleucus II, after being driven across the Taurus and com- 
pelled to make Syria his chief seat of government, is said to have "lost his 
kingdom" and to be "an exile." "Seleucus quoque isdem fernie diebus amisso 
regno equo praecipitatus finitur, sic fratres quasi et germanis casibus exules ambo 
post regna scelerum suorum poenas luerunt" (xxvii. 3, 12). 

^ eU ras jSaa-iXi/cds ypa(pa,s rds iv J^dpdeaiy, Eevue de Philol. xxv. (1901), 
p. 9. 

^ Its hippodrome, Polyb. vii. 17, 2 ; its theatre, ib. 18, 3. We hear (after 
188) of the demos of Sardis (6 Sa^uos 6 "ZapdiavGiv) sending envoys to Delphi, Bull, 
corr. hell. v. (1881), p. 385. 

* See Appendix G. 

6 Michel, No. 85. « Polyb. xxi. 16 (13), 4. 

' iv T^ iraTpairelq., Michel, No. 40. The inscription was found in Phrygia. 


they continued to hold territory in Caria, Lycia, and Cappa- 
docia, modified the system which they found existing.^ 

While " satrapy " continued to be the official name for the 
province, the governor in official documents is called by the 
Greek title of strategos? In popular language he was still 
spoken of as satrap.^ He was the intermediary in all trans- 
actions between the central government and the province. 
It was to him that the King addressed his rescripts, which the 
strategos communicated in his turn to the subordinate officials 
who would be concerned with their execution.^ 

What the lower officials were who made up the machine 
of government in Asia Minor under the Seleucids we are 
only imperfectly informed. Each satrapy seems to have had 
a special controller of the finances (6 eVt twv TrpoaoScov).^ An 
oikonomos is mentioned in an inscription recently published, 
where his duty is to pass on to a district officer an order 
received by the strategos from the King relating to the aliena- 
tion of a piece of the royal domain.^ The same inscription 
gives the title of this district officer as hyparchos. This word, 
of course, in popular speech was quite a vague one, meaning 
any one who bore authority under any one else, and was even 
used as a translation of the Persian satrap? In the official 
language hyparclios meant the governor of one of those 

^ There may be some doubt whether Caria continued to form a separate 
satrapy or was amalgamated with Lydia, since one would expect to hear some- 
thing of the satrap of Caria, if there was one, at the time of Pliilip's operations 
in that region (see vol. ii, p. 33). Pamphylia, on the other hand, may have been 
separated from Lycia, since it is mentioned separately in the inscription of 
Ptolemy III (Michel, No. 1239), but the regions mentioned there need not 
necessarily be satrapies. 

"^ Michel, No. 526 ; Bull. corr. hell. x. (1886), p. 515 ; cf. Haussoullier, FeTme 
de Philol. XXV. (1901), p. 21. 

3 Polyb. xxi. 16 (13), 4. 

^ E.g. Michel, Nos. 35, 40 ; cf. Haussoullier, Revue de Philol. xxv. (1901), 
p. 22. The form of these rescripts is given us in the inscriptions cited ; they 
open with a plain salutation, in which the name of the governor appears without 
the mention of his office, BocrtXei^s 'KvTioxoi MeKedypi^ x^^P^i-"- The rescript to 
Zeuxis begins BaaiXeiis 'Aptioxos Zeij^idi T<f Trarpi xa^p«)/ (Joseph, xii. § 148). 
The rescripts to Meleager close with the word ^ppuxro. 

^ Bull. corr. hell. xv. (1891), p. 556 ; cf. Arr. Anab. i. 17, 7 ; iii. 
16, 4. 

^ Haussoullier, Revue de Philol. xxv. (1901), p. 9. 

■^ E.g. Diod. xix. 48, 5 ; Arr, Anab, iv. 18, 3, and generally in Herodotus. 


smaller districts, hyparchies, into which the satrapy was 

Such is about all we know of the framework of govern- 
ment. In what relation did the different elements which 
made up the population stand to the Seleucid power ? 

§ 5. The Native Powers o.nd Antiochus I 

First we notice that the north of the peninsula has now 
been finally abandoned. The native dynasties, the houses of 
Mithridates, of Ariarathes and of Ziboetes — these and the 
Galatian tribes are left in unchallenged possession of all that 
lies to the north of the central plateau. 

Of the two principalities of Persian origin that of 
Mithridates soon showed itself the more important. Mithridates 
already assumed the name of king in 281 or 280,^ and coined 
in gold — a mark of absolute independence. Neither of these 
things did Ariarathes venture to do. The kingdom of 
Mithridates seems from the first to have admitted the lustre 
of Hellenism ; his father indeed and grandfather in the 
fourth century had been ardently phil- Hellenic, and received 
the honorary franchise of Athens.^ The territory he now 
ruled had bordering upon it Greek cities like Trapezus and 
Sinope, and Mithridates was in diplomatic connexion with 

The principality of Ariarathes, on the other hand, has an 
out-of-the world, antiquated air about it. Ariarathes II con- 
tinues to stamp his money with an Aramaic legend.* His court 
was a region which the vagrant literati of Greece, who were 
found everywhere else, did not explore.^ It must have seemed 
by contrast a strangely silent place. A primitive domesticity 
is the impression we gather from the family annals till Seleucid 
princesses come to trouble the house with the spirit of a 

1 See Appendix H. - T. Reinach, Trois royaumcs, p. 161. 

^ Demosth. in Aristoc. § 141, 202. His father may be meant by the 
Mithridates, son of Rhodobates {sic), who presented the Athenian Academy with 
a statue of Plato, Diog. Laert. iii. 20 (2.^). See Marquart. Philologus, liv. (1895), 
p. 491. 

* Reiuach, Trois royaumes, p. 29. ^ Diod. xxxi. 19, 8. 


less simple and kindly sphere. The only tiling we know 
as to the part taken by the Cappadocian court in history for 
a hundred years is that it seems the place where a fugitive 
Seleucid prince can best efface himself from the sight of the 

Whether Antiochus I, ha^dng recognized the impossibility 
of ejecting Mithridates and Ariamnes, who seems to have 
succeeded his father Ariarathes II about the same time that 
Antiochus succeeded to the Seleucid throne/ adopted that 
policy of close friendship with the two Persian courts which 
was afterwards the tradition of the Seleucid house we are 
not told. From faint indications we may conjecture that 
the tradition goes back in its origin to his reign. The only 
piece of information we get as to the history of Mithridates I 
after the accession of Antiochus is that some Galatian bands, 
whom Mithridates and his son Ariobarzanes had taken into 
their service, drove a Ptolemaic force which had endeavoured 
to penetrate into the interior back to the sea, and took the 
anchors of the Egyptian ships. Whatever historical founda- 
tion the story may have, it goes to show the Mithridatic 
house as an ally of the Seleucid." 

In the case of the South Cappadocian court it may show 
close relations with the house of Seleucus that Ariamnes 
begins to put a Greek instead of an Aramaic legend upon 
his coins.^ 

In the hills between Bithynia and the valley of the Amnias 
the chiefs of the native tribes perhaps already began to assert 
their independence of any of their great neighbours. It was 
the country in which Mithridates had first grounded his 
power, but in the course of the century which succeeded his 
establishment as king farther east, Paphlagonia seems to have 

1 The dates of Ariamnes are extremely uncertain, Reinach, Trois royaumts, 
p. 14, note 1. 

2 Apollonius of Aphrodisias, ap. Steph. Byz. s.v. 'AyKvpa. The story is 
an aetiological legend to account for the name of the city Ancyra. The place of 
the incident which it is supposed to reflect is thought by Droysen (iii. p. 264) 
to be the shores of the Black Sea, by Niese (ii. p. 129, note 9) Caria. 

3 " Ce prince est le premier de la s^rie qui ait fait reproduire son portrait sur 
ses monnaies ; il est aussi le premier qui ait substitue I'ecriture grecque k 
I'ecriture arameenne. Ces innovations indiquent un rapprochement avec la 
civilisation h^ll^nique." Reinach, Trois royauvies, p. 31. 


1. Seleucus I NicATOR. ( From a coin o( Pcrgamos. I 

2. Demetrius (Poliorcetes). 


4. Philetaerus of Pergamos. 


6. Apollo on the omphalos^ the characteristic reverse typi 

ON the tetradrachms of Antiochus I, Antiochus 11. 
Seleucus III, Antiochus III and Seleucus IV. found also 
on many tetradrachms of Antiochus IV. 

7. Antiochus II Theos. 

8. Ptolemy III Euergetes, of Egypi. 


10. Seleucus II KalliniIcos (young). 

11. The Same (bearded). 

12. Seleucus III Soter (Keraunosi. 

Plate I 

t '^ ifc> 






fallen back to the same condition as under the Persian 
Empire. In the earlier part of the second century before 
Christ a native chief, Morzias, has his seat at Gangra (mod. 

The war between Antiochus and Nicomedes of Bithynia 
seems never to have been renewed after the Gallic invasion. 
That war was the last attempt made hy a Macedonian ruler to 
humble the house of Doedalsus. Under Mcomedes the Bithynian 
kingdom passes from a mere barbaric chiefship to a state of the 
approved Hellenistic pattern. Ziboetes had already founded a 
city ; under Nicomedes the transformation of Bithynia was 
carried through. Nicomedes, the " executioner of his brothers," 
had a heart as cruel as any barbarian sultan's, but an un- 
regenerate heart has never prevented a barbarian, then or now, 
from assuming the externals, and even some of the tastes, of a 
higher civilization. The coins of Nicomedes — for now the 
Bithynian principality begins to have a coinage — show him a 
regular Greek king, with the smooth-shaven face which had 
become the vogue since Alexander, and the simple band of 
riband to show his royalty. In the great Hellenic centre, 
Olympia, his form figured in ivory.^ 

In 264 Nicomedes founded the city which was to 
perpetuate his name. At the end of the most northern 
of the two inlets on the east side of the Propontis had stood 
the Greek city of Astacus. The situation was an important 
one, lying on the road between the Bosphorus and the interior 
of Bithynia, just as Nicaea, the city of Antigonus and 
Lysimachus, lay on the road between the Bosphorus and 
Phrygia. Astacus had been demolished by Lysimachus perhaps 
in the interests of Nicaea. Since then its citizens had been 
homeless. Now, near the vacant site, but on the opposite 
side of the inlet,^ enjoying the same advantages of situation as 
the old city, rose the new Nicomedia. The population of the 

^ Strabo xii. 562 ; cf. Polyb. xxv. 2, 9. 

^ Paus. v.|12, 7. At least it was the local tradition that a certain ivory 
statue represented this Nicomedes. It may have been he, too, who offered to 
pay off the whole public debt of Cnidns if they would let him have the Aphrodite 
of Praxiteles, but it may equally well have been one of the later Bithynian kings 
(Pliny, N.H. vii. § 127 ; xxxvi. § 21). 

^ avTiKpi/'AffTCLKov, ^emuoTi 20 — F.H.G. iii. p. 536. 


old city, was settled in the new. In course of time Nicomedia 
came to be one of the great cities of the world.^ 

But although hostilities between Nicomedes and Antiochus 
appear to have ceased, the war had left behind it a feeling of 
estrangement. It was probably believed at the Bithynian 
court that the house of Seleucus wanted only some accession 
of good fortune to become again its aggressive enemy. 
Antiochus on his part may have smarted under some sense of 
dishonour not wiped away. At any rate Nicomedes at his 
death committed his infant children to the protection, not of 
the Seleucid King, but of Antigonus, Ptolemy, and the 
neighbouring cities.^ 

At Pergamos, during all the time that Antiochus, the son 
of Seleucus, was combating Ptolemaic and barbarian enemies 
in Asia Minor, the astute eunuch Philetaerus remained master 
of citadel and treasure. He seems to have seen his interest in 
maintaining to the end his policy of friendship with the house 
of Seleucus. The earliest coins of the Pergamene dynasty, 
those probably which were struck under the rule of Philetaerus, 
exhibit the head of the deified Seleucus.^ And Antiochus on 
his side probably thought it wise to purchase the adherence of 
Philetaerus by moderating his claims.* So that all through 
the twenty years of his rule Philetaerus was able to go on 
quietly consolidating the power of his house. At the very 
beginning of the reign of Antiochus, when Pitane contracted a 
debt of 380 talents to the King, we find Philetaerus forward 
to advance them a portion of the sum, and thereby secure 
some influence over that city.^ An inscription just published 
(1902) records his gifts to the city of Cyzicus, to make good 
the losses it had suffered in some war (with the anti-Seleucid 
Northern League ?) and from the ravages of the Galatians.^ 
And his family, drawing no doubt on his support, were 
meanwhile acquiring power in the country. The Eumenes 
who was in possession of Amastris about 280 (see page 134) 
was probably his brother, and by the time that Philetaerus 

1 Liban. Oral. vi. 2 Memnon Tl=F.H.O. iii. p. 537 

" Imhoof-Blumer, Die Munzen der Dynastie von Pergamon, p. 26. 

* Strabo xiii. 623. ^ Frankel, Inschrift. von Pergamon, No. 245. 

6 J.H.S. xxii. p. 194. 


came to be an old man of eighty, the son of this Eumenes, 
called also Eumenes, had established himself as dynast in the 
region adjacent to Pergamos. The other brother of Philetaerus, 
Attains, contracted a marriage which must have advertised 
to the world the standing which the house of Philetaerus 
had attained. His wife was Antiochis, the daughter of 
Achaeus, a cousin of the Seleucid King.^ 

In 263-262 Philetaerus died at the age of eighty ,2 and 
Pergamos passed to his nephew Eumenes, who now united 
with it the principality of which he already stood possessed. 
This concentration of power in the hands of a younger ruler 
than the old eunuch was followed by a rupture with the house 
of Seleucus. It was probably inevitable that the Seleucid 
King should not suffer this new power to grow up without 
first testing his ability to prevent it. Eumenes, when 
hostilities had once been opened, struck straight for the 
Seleucid capital. A battle was fought in the neighbour- 
hood of Sardis, at which Antiochus would seem to have com- 
manded in person. It issued in a decisive victory for the 
Pergamene forces.^ This happened only a short while before 
Antiochus I died. 

Of the way in which Antiochus dealt with the free tribes 
of the Taurus, of any action of the Seleucid house in Lycia or 
Pamphylia, we know nothing except what can be inferred 
from the names which stamp some cities as Seleucid 

§ 6. The Greek Cities and Antiochus I 

The relation between the King and the Greek cities was 
still formally what it had been since Alexander. They did 
not in theory form a part of his dominion, but a series of 
independent states, with whom the King, the lord of the 
barbarian interior, had entered into alliance. The Empire was 
not in this view a monarchy, but a federation, of which the 
King and a number of free republics were members.^ It was 

^ Strabo loc. cit. " Luciiii, Mucroh. 12. 

" Strabo loc. cit. * See Appendix I. 

5 ev TTJ x^Pt ■>"« ''*' "■i^MM^X'?) Michel, No. 35, 1. 46 ; ib. 1. 58. 


unnecessary for official language to take account of the fact 
that one member of the federation was so immensely more 
powerful than the rest that his sole word was law. Still, as 
under Alexander, the King's territory was distinguished from 
the territory of the cities.^ Of the occupiers of his own land, 
the Phrygian and Lydian villagers (/Saa-LXiKol \aoi), the King, 
as supreme proprietor, exacted regular tribute.^ He had no 
such rights over the territory of the Greek cities. The 
frontiers between these two spheres underwent continual 
modification. Of instances in which the King acquired or 
seized territory belonging to the cities there is no record ; ^ 
such an act there would be little motive to register. On the 
other hand, it was in the interest of the new possessors to 
have clear documents to point to in cases where the King 
alienated some parcel of his domain. Of these, therefore, some 
trace has survived. The alienation is seen taking place in 
two ways. Sometimes the King makes it an affair of business, 
raising money by a sale. At the very beginning of his reign 
Antiochus I sells a piece of ground to the city of Pitane for 
380 talents ; the transaction is engraved on stone, and records 
of it laid up in the temples of Ilion, Ephesus, and Delos.^ 

Another instance of sale is that recorded in a recently 
published inscription.^ It was perhaps a somewhat abnormal 
case, for the purchaser is here not a Greek city or a citizen of 
one, but the sister-wife herself of King Antiochus II, Laodice. 
"Whether it was usual for Seleucid queens to buy themselves 
appanages with money paid into the royal treasury, or whether 
the transaction in question sprang from the peculiar state of 
things, when Queen Laodice was living in divorce, we do not 
know. In this case also the sale was to be recorded not only 

1 HaussouUier {Revue de Philol. xxv. (1901) p. 27) makes the royal domain 
(17 ^aaiXiKT] x^^pa), if I understand him rightly, to be sijecial lands belonging to 
the crown within the realm, the par adeisoi inherited from the Persian kings, and 
so on. It appears to me rather to be the realm itself distinguished from the 
territory of the Greek cities, which were, in theory, outside the realm. 

^ 7) (popoKoyovfj.ivT) x^P^ is used by Antigonus as equivalent to r/ ijfjLer^pa 
in distinction from the territory of Teos, Michel, No. 34, 1. 84, 85. 

^ Seleucus II promises Smyrna ttjv TrarpiBa (xwjoac) d-rrodujaeii', Michel No. 
258. This may point to a seizure of some of the city's territory by a former king. 

■* Frankel, Inschr. von Pergamon, No. 245 C. 

^ HaussouUier, Revue de Philol. xxv. (1901), p. 9. 


in the government archives at Sardis, but by steles in the 
temples of Ilion, Samothrace, Ephesus, Branchidae, and 

At other times the kings alienate parcels of their territory 
by way of grants to individual Greeks. Such grants of land 
to reward good service were an old custom of the Macedonian 
monarchy.^ The hordes of adventurers from all corners of 
the Greek world who flocked to the Seleucid court had in view 
similar rewards among the rich fields of Asia. But any one 
who found himself in possession of land within the King's 
realm would of course have to pay the tribute which was 
ordinarily paid by the barbarian cultivators. To do this 
would injure not only the pocket, but the dignity, of a Greek. 
In the cases, therefore, which we can examine of such aliena- 
tions the territory is removed from the realm altogether. The 
new possessor is allowed to annex it to the domain of one or 
other of the allied cities, to hold it as a citizen or metoikos of 
that city, not as the subject of a king, and to pay money only 
indirectly into the royal treasury, in so far as he contributes 
to whatever the city is obliged, as an ally, to furnish. Both 
Laodice and Aristodicides of Assos — in the two cases under 
our observation — are allowed great latitude in choosing the 
city to which their property is to be attached. It need not 
necessarily be a city of the immediate neighbourhood. There 
are in fact known cases in which cities possessed lands 
{enclaves) altogether detached from their main territory, and 
surrounded by the possessions of other states.^ 

To what extent the reality answered to the form by which 
the Greek cities took the rank of free states, we have not the 
means to determine. We find at any rate many of the cities 
still disposing of military and naval forces of their own. Two 
inscriptions from Erythrae contain honours voted to the civic 
strategoi for organizing the city's forces, and from one of them 
we learn that these forces consisted to some extinct, like all 
armies of the time, of mercenaries.^ An inscription of Priene 
seems to indicate a mercenary force maintained by the people 

1 Cf. Michel, No. 321 ; Demosth. De Fals. Leg. § 145. 

'^ Haussoullier, Revue de Philol. xxv. (1901), p. 32. 

■' Michel, Nos. 503, 504. 


in the citadel,^ Smyrna has troops in the middle of the third 
century with which it can garrison neighbouring towns.^ 
Alexandria Troas in 216 can launch a force of 4000 men 
against a Galatian horde.^ Calymna about the same time 
possesses a fleet.^ 

With the means of levying war on their own account, the 
cities to some extent pursue an independent policy. In the 
disturbed times which immediately preceded the conquest of 
Asia Minor by Seleucus we hear of a petty war between 
Magnesia-on-the-Meander and Priene.^ There were probably 
various gradations of freedom, depending partly on geographical 
position, partly on the circumstances of the moment, between 
the complete liberty of great states like Heraclea or Rhodes 
and the subjection of a royal residence like Ephesus under 
Antiochus II. 

In whatever cases the King was strong enough, if he chose, 
to demand tribute, to set a garrison, to meddle with the 
constitution, the city lived with an uneasy sense of holding all 
that it most valued on sufferance. The inscriptions which 
record the benefactions of the kings say nothing of the cases 
where he used his power to curtail liberty. But the effusion 
with which they acknowledge his moderation is significant. 
Priene, a story says, was " enslaved " by Antiochus I for a 
time, and liberated again through the influence of its citizen, 
Sostratus the daucer.^ Perhaps already the exaction of tribute 
((p6po<;), which under Alexander had been, as we have noted, 
only an exceptional punishment, was becoming common, as it 
appears to have been in the time of Antiochus III,'^ or it 
may have been that the name of tribute began to be bluntly 
applied to the forced benevolences. For demanding such 
contributions the Seleucid kings had a good pretext in the 
Galatian peril ; it was indeed only fair that the cities should 
pay their quota towards the cause which was theirs as well 
as the kings' ; but the pretext may have been used im- 

^ Michel, No. 483 ; cf. Lenschau, De rebus Frienensium, p. 207. 

2 Michel, No. 19, 1. 100. ^ Polyb. v. Ill, 4. 

* Inscr. in tlie Brit. Mus. No. 259. The date of the inscription is unknown. 

5 Inscr. in the Brit. Mus. Nos. 401, 402. 

® Sext. Empir. adv. gramm. 293 = p. 667, 15, Bekker. 

■^ Polylj. xxi. 43, 2. 


moderately ; whether it was or not, the cities felt the demand 
a burden. 

To judge, however, by the inscriptions, Antiochus I and 
Antiochus II were ready enough to meet the wishes of the 
Greeks. In a somewhat ambiguous phrase the envoys of the 
Ionian Body to Antiochus I are instructed to exhort the King 
"to take the Ionian cities under his most earnest care, in 
order that henceforth, enjoying free and popular government, 
they may at last be secure in the possession of those con- 
stitutions which their fathers have handed down to them; 
and the envoys are further to represent to the King that in 
so doing he will confer great benefits upon the cities and will 
also adhere to the policy of his ancestors." ^ It does not read 
as if a danger to the laws and liberties of the cities were 
apprehended from the King himself; it seems rather as if it 
were against external enemies that the Seleucid is entreated 
to become protector. One might guess that the occasion of 
the decree was some withdrawal of the Ptolemaic forces, or 
a defeat of the Galatians, or the suppression of some local 
tyrants. In the case of one of the Ionian cities, Erythrae, an 
inscription informs us that its freedom was respected by 
Antiochus I, as it had been by Alexander, Antigonus, and 
Seleucus ; Antiochus even remitted the contribution to the 
Galatian war.^ 

There were two ways by which the cities might bring 
influence to bear upon the King. There was firstly the 
direct method of diplomatic intercourse. Envoys were 
continually going to and fro between the several cities and 
the court. The royal embassies were given precedence of all 
others in the cities save the sacred ones.^ The kings, on 
their part, appear continually receiving embassies from the 

^ irapaKaKeiTw'ja'av 5^ oi irp^a^eis rbfi /3a(Tt[X^a 'Afrioxov Trdjav eTrifx^iXeiav 
iroLeTadai tQ/j. 7r6Xe[wi' tQv 'Iddwv iVcos Slv rb \oLTr!i\v eXevdepai. oiVat /cat 5-qfxo- 
[Kparo'iiJ.evai ^efialus ijdrj TroXtJrei^wvTat Kara toi)s Trarpi^ovs v6fiovs, d.Tro(paLV^rw(Ta]v 
Si avrQ ol irpiff^ei's dibri [tovto iroiQv iroWQv re dyad]u)v atrios ?<TTai. rats Tr6\e[ffiv Kal 
d/xa dKo\ov6rjcr€L rrj t]Qv vpoy6vo)v alp^ffei. Michel, No. 486. "His ancestors," 
as we see by another inscription is simply a court phrase for Seleucus, his 
father ; what is meant, of course, is " the traditional policy of his house," as 
we should put it. 

^ Michel, No. 37. See Appendix J. * Michel, Nos. 367, 457. 



cities. The expenses of this intercourse formed a very serious 
item in the civic budgets. The ambassadors to court could 
not go empty-handed. Those, for instance, sent by Erythrae 
to Antiochus I have to carry a crown, presumably of gold, 
and gold for presents (eh ra ^evia)} The expenditure on 
such embassies ranked with that on theatres, temples, and 
great public works.^ The other, and probably more effectual, 
means of securing their ends the cities found in obtaining the 
advocacy of persons powerful at court. This advocacy had 
often without doubt to be purchased, and the presents to the 
King's friends were perhaps as severe a drain on the city's 
resources as the presents to the King himself.^ Sometimes, 
however, there was no necessity to pay for the services of an 
advocate. Civic patriotism was an unfeigned virtue among 
the Greeks, and those who won influence over the King no 
doubt thought in the first place of exercising it for the benefit 
of their native city. The case of Sostratus the dancer has 
been already mentioned. Demodamas, the explorer of the Ear 
East for Seleucus and Antiochus I, did not cease to act as a 
citizen of Miletus.* 

It was specially as arbitrator in the quarrels between city 
and city, or faction and faction, that the King was appealed to. 
"We find the Seleucid King intervening in the intestine feuds 
of Bargylia,^ and perhaps in the secular quarrel between Samos 
and Priene.^ It was of course not absolutely necessary that 
the King to whose empire cities at variance were attached 
should be the arbitrator chosen ; it might be a neutral city.'' 

1 Michel, No. 37. 

2 The patriotic Malusins lends money largely without interest to the Ilian 
Body, 300 gold pieces for an embassy to Antigonus, Michel, No. 522. 

^ Haussoullier thinks that the Arrhidaeus honoured by Ephesus {Inscr. of 
the Brit. Mus. No. 451) was the aikonovws of the property of Laodice, and that 
he championed the cause of Ephesus at her court, Revue de Philol. xxv. 
(1901), p. 20. 

■* Haussoullier, Revue de Philol. xxiv. (1900), p. 245 f. 

^ Michel, No. 457. The rescripts relating to a quarrel between Priene and 
Miletus, of which fragments remain {Inscr. in Brit. Mus. Nos. 412, 414), may 
emanate from a Seleucid king (Lenschau), but are probably later (Haussoullier, 
Revue de Philol. xxv. (1901), p. 141). 

" Inscr. in the Brit. Mus. No. 403, 1. 132 f. (the King is Antiochus II). 

■• Michel, No. AIT ; C.I.G. No. 3184; Sonne, De arbitris extemis {Quaest. 
epig. GotL), 1888. 


The usual course seems to have been for the King, even when 
appealed to, not to adjudge the disputes himself but to nominate 
a neutral party, some friendly city, as arbitrator.^ 

The relations, however, between the earlier Seleucids and 
the old Greek cities do not exhaust the relations of that house 
with Asiatic Hellenism. For Hellenism was spreading far 
beyond its original sphere. It was under these Greek kings 
— perhaps it was their greatest glory, though historians 
were far more interested in their battles, their vices and 
their amours — it was under them that the process went on 
by which Hellenism pushed its way far into the interior. 
Cities with Greek names, of Greek speech and life, rose one 
by one where before only ignoble Phrygian or Cappadocian 
towns had huddled round temples and bazaars, 

Antiochus I has been described by a well-known authority- 
as that " great city-builder who has almost faded out of our 
tradition." - A view of that work we shall never recover, 
except imperfectly. Prom time to time archaeology will fill 
in fresh details of that mighty plan by which the successors 
of Alexander, Greek and Roman, multiplied the centres of 
Hellenism in the land. It is part of the difficulty that even 
when we have ascertained the existence of a Greek or 
Macedonian colony in a particular place it remains in a large 
number of cases doubtful who planted it there, and wheu.^ 

A certain mark of Seleucid foundation (or refoundation) 
is given by the names of some of the cities, Seleucia, Antioch, 
Laodicea, and so on. The cities so named are found to go 
mostly along the two main lines of communication between 
Syria and the Aegean, the water-way along the coast — 
where we have seen the Seleucid competing with Ptolemaic 
foundations — and the great high-road which ran from the 
C'ilician Gates westward between the inner steppe and the 
Pisidian hills to Lydia and Ionia. 

^ So in the case of Bargylia the King nominates Teos, which deputes one of 
its citizens to try the cases on the spot. Cf. the action of Antigonus (Michel, 
No. 34, i. 30). 

2 ". . . dem grossen aber in der Ueberlieferung fast verschollenen 
Stadtegriinder," E. Meyer, Hermes xxxiii. (1898), p. 643. 

^ See the examination to which E. Meyer {loc. cit.) submits the catalogue of 
Riidet {De coloniis a Alacedojiibus in Asiani cis Taurum deduct is, Paris, 1892). 


The Seleucid cities on this road are placed, as no doubt 
had been the native settlements before them, at the points of 
junction where other roads run in from either side. 

First, going from the east, is the Laodicea called "the 
Burnt -up " (KaraKeKavfievrj), where a road comes in from 
Cappadocia, the realm of Ariarathes, and the Upper Euphrates. 
Then after turning the northern end of the mountain obstacle, 
Paroreia (now called Sultan Dagh), the highway ran on to the 
Phrygian capital, Apamea. Its predecessor was the Phry- 
gian town of Celaenae, a strong mountain city of the old- 
world sort in whose very market-place the Marsyas rushed 
from a sacred cavern to join the Meander, that river also 
having its source in a neighbouring tarn. Here roads came in 
from all sides, from Northern Phrygia and from Pisidia ; it was 
the central point of the interior. Here Antigonus had had 
his seat of government at a time when he aspired to rule Asia. 
Perhaps he had already begun the new Greco-Macedonian city 
lower down towards the foot of the hills, which from the time 
that Seleucus conquered Asia Minor was known as Apamea, 
a memorial of the Iranian queen. From Apamea the great 
high-road ran down the Lycus valley. Where that valley 
opens out before the junction of the Lycus and Meander, in 
the fat plains which nourished innumerable flocks and yielded 
the softest wool to the Greek market,^ two chief roads diverged. 
One ran north-west to the valley of the Hermus and the royal 
city of Sardis, the government centre of Asia Minor ; the 
other led the trains of merchantmen down the Meander valley 
to the commercial centre, Ephesus. 

Above the plains of the Lycus where these roads diverged 
we find the third great Seleucid city, Laodicea, rich and in- 
creased with goods from the traffic which passed through it and 
the exchange of its wool,^ looking on the one hand down the 
Meander to the Aegean, and on the other through the " Syrian " 
Gate down the long road that led ever eastwards. On the 

^ Strabo xii. 578. 

2 The region in which Laodicea lay was peculiarly subject to earthquake and 
volcanic disturbances, and was hence called Katakekaumene, "Burnt-up." A 
confusion therefore of this Laodicea with the other easterly Laodicea is to be 
avoided, which was itself distinguished as Katakekaumene. Laodicea Kata- 
kekaumene was not in the region called Katakekaumene. 


road between Laodicea and Sardis no certain trace of a 
Seleucid foundation has been discovered, though such there 
may have been. The traffic on the other road to Ephesus 
was no doubt much greater, and here the Seleucid foundations 
succeeded one another at short intervals. First came an 
Antioch, Antioch-on-Meander, a place that gave its name to a 
brand of dried figs,^ then a day's journey brought one to Nysa, 
which was for a time renamed Antioch, and another day's 
journey to Tralles, to which the same undiscriminating name 
as well as the other of Seleucia was attached. From Tralles 
Ephesus was only thirty-five miles by road.^ 

Such were the cities with Seleucid names through which 
the main artery of commerce between the Ionian coast and 
the Farther East ran. It remains to enumerate those which 
commanded the side lines. 

The main road, as we have seen, turned the north of the 
Paroreia (by Philomelium, Holmi, Chelidonia, and Metropolis ^) ; 
on the south side of the range was set an Antioch, from which 
a side-road ran into the main road at Apamea.* 

Whether at the time when this Antioch was founded there 
was an alternative road to the main road on the south of the 
Sultan Dagh, leaving the main road at Iconium and rejoining 
it at Apamea, or whether Antioch was rather the terminus of 
a road pushed out from Apamea, an outpost of the Seleucid 
power towards the Pisidian hills, we do not know. Antioch 
in Pisidia was one of those cities which succeeded an older 
religious centre of the Phrygians, in this case a sanctuary of 
the Moon god, endowed with a great property in lands and 
slaves. The new settlers, planted presumably by some Seleucid 
king to form the substance of his Greek city, were drawn from 
Magnesia-on-Meander.^ Another road came into Apamea from 
a Seleucia, surnamed " the Iron " (ZeXevKeia a-LSijpd), planted 

^ Sti-abo xiii. 630. 

- It is probable that the refouu elation of these towns as Autioehs belongs to 
the time of Antiochus III. 

^ Strabo xiv. 663 ; cf. Ramsay, Historical Geography of Asia Mimrr, p. 171. 

^ Kiepert, connecting Antioch and Philomelium by a road across the Paroreia, 
makes them both stations on the main road, but there appears to be no possibility 
of more than a rough bridle-path over the mountain, Ramsay, Church in the 
Eoman Emjnre, p. 28 ; Murray, Asia Minor, p. 148. 

^ Strabo xii. 577. 


on the western side of Lake Egirdir (its name still survives 
as Selef). This may also have been intended to keep a watch 
on Sagalassus and the Pisidian towns to the south.^ Still 
more to the west we find a city whose foundation is fixed by 
its name of Themisonium (mod. Kara-euyuk Bazar) to the 
reign of Antiochus II, accessible by a roughish pass from 
Laodicea on the Lycus, and looking across the valley of the 
Indus towards the mountain state of Cibyra. A station of 
guard-troops or constabulary ((pvXaKLTat) and settlements of 
military colonists, probably Seleucid, is proved by an inscrip- 
tion to have existed in the valley below on the road to Cibyra, 
at Eriza (near Dere-Keui) and the neighbouring villages.^ 

Groing westward still, we find a road connecting Tralles- 
Antioch on the main road with the harbours of Southern Caria, 
Physcus, and Caunus. It was the further connexion of these 
harbours with a great commercial state like Pthodes, which 
indeed came to possess them as dependencies, that the import- 
ance of this road across Caria lay. It passed through the old 
centres of Carian life, through Alabanda and by the temple 
of Zeus Chrysaoreus, the religious centre of the Carian people, 
in which the federal parliament assembled, composed of dele- 
gates from the various groups of villages.^ 

In both places the Seleucid government made establish- 
ments. Alabanda for a time became Antioch.* By the temple 
of Zeus Chrysaoreus arose a new Macedonian city, Stratonicea, 
founded no doubt by Antiochus I in honour of his wife. The 
Macedonian settlers took part in the national assemblies and 
cults at the neighbouring temples.^ 

To find the other colonies, which are certainly Seleucid, 
we must go northwards to those roads which bind the capital, 
Sardis, to the Troad — the highway, that is, between Sardis 

^ This colony is omitted, perhaps by an oversight, in Radet's catalogue. 

'^ Berard, Bull. corr. hell. xv. (1891), p. 556. HaussouUier, Revue dc Philol. 
XXV. (1901), p. 24. Mr. Mahaflfy {Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 492) says that this 
inscription ' ' shows that the sway of Egypt extended up the mountain passes " 
from the coast. That the inscription is Egyptian is the very thing which requires 
to he proved. It is more probably Seleucid. The well-known iuscrijition con- 
taining the decree of Antiochus II (Michel, No. 40) was found at Durdurkar in, 
this neighbourhood. 

» Strabo xiv. 660 ; cf. C.I.G. 2691 f. ; Revv£ 0^ Mvdes Grecques, xii. (1899), 
p. 345 f. Steph. Byz. "^ Strabo xiv. 660. 


and Europe — and to the Propontis.^ Travellers to either 
destination would go in company till a place was reached some 
ten miles from the ridge which divides the waters of the 
Hermus from those of the Caicus. Thence the roads forked, 
one entering the Caicus valley and running down it to Per- 
gamos, the other crossing the valley higher up and striking 
over the hills to Cyzicus. It was at this point that a colony 
of Macedonians took possession of the native town of Thyatira,^ 
These Macedonians claimed the great Seleucus as their founder, 
but the story they told of the city's origin is discredited by 
modern etymology, and the real founder may have been 
Antiochus I.^ 

The road from Thyatira down the Caicus valley was the 
thoroughfare between Sardis and Pergamos, continued beyond 
Pergamos in the coast road of the Troad. On this no Antiochs 
or Seleucias are to be found. In this region the earlier 
Seleucid kings were willing to tolerate the authority of the 
rulers of Pergamos. Already, in the reign of Antiochus I, 
there rose a Philetaeria under Ida and an Attalia.* 

A rupture between the courts of Sardis and Pergamos 
must have broken communication between the Seleucid govern- 
ment and the Hellespont by the natural way that followed the 
Caicus. Under such circumstances the road leading north 
from Thyatira to the district of the modern Balikisri,^ whence 

^ The Stratonicea vp6s ti2 Tavpiii, mentioned by Strabo (xiv. 660), and 
described as iroKLxviov irpoa-Keifj-evov ry 6p€(., is still unidentified, 

2 Strabo xiii. 625. 

^ Steph. Byz. dirb lleXeijKOV rod 'NiKo.Topos \vinndxv iroKejj.ovvTOi koL aKovaavros 
Sri dvyar-qp avry -^iyove rrjv vdXiv divopiaae Qvydreipa. The name is a native one, 
"teira" being supposed by S. Reinach and Ramsay {Historical Geography, p. 
114, note-) to mean " town." As a matter of fact, the legend does not seem to me 
to be proved baseless by this ; a Greek might well have retained the native name 
because of its ominous coincidence with the birth of a daughter, and it must be 
admitted to be curious that in the case of a colony so important as Thyatira there 
is no attempt to replace the native name by one borrowed from the royal house. 
But it is the general untrustworthiness of such legends which makes this one 

■* Michel, No. 15. The site of Philetaeria is unidentified. There was an 
Attalia on the Lycus about ten miles north of Thyatira (Radet, £ull. corr. hell. 
xi. (1887), p. 168 f., p. 397 f.), but it seems to me unlikely that the Pergamene 
authority stretched so far east in 263. 

^ Identified by Ramsay with Hadrianutherae, which itself no doubt succeeded 
an earlier Greek town. 


one can reach the Troad by striking off to the west, must have 
assumed great importance. It is on this road that we find a 
Stratonicea where it crosses the Ca'icus valley.'^ It remains 
only to note that in the Troad itself the town of Cebrene is 
proved at one period by its coins to have entitled itself 
Antioch. It must have recovered an independent existence 
after Antigonus had transferred its population to Ilion, thanks 
possibly to the good-will of a Seleucid king.^ 

The new cities of the Greek kings differed generally from 
the old native towns in being on lower ground. The old 
towns had been rather citadels than dwelling-places, fortresses 
perched on the edge of precipices, to which the cultivators of 
the neighbouring fields might flee in stress of war. Con- 
siderations of commercial convenience and easier living made 
it a point to have the new cities accessible rather than 
inaccessible. The new cities seemed to have slid down from 
the heights to come into touch with the plains. It was 
still unusual to build them in an altogether exposed position, 
although in a country securely pacified like Lydia it might 
be done. Thyatira lay flat upon the marshes of the Lycus.^ 

But the favourite position was the foot of some hill half 
plain and half slope, a compromise between convenience and 
security. This was notably the case with the colonies along 
the great eastern highway, Laodicea the Burnt-up in a bare 
" theatre-shaped recess in the outer skirt of the mountains," * 
Apamea below the old Celaenae, set on a foot-hill where the 
Marsyas breaks into the plain, Laodicea on the Lycus on 
the slopes which rise from the river to Mount Salbacus. 

§ 7. The End of Antiochus I 

Between July 262 and July 261 Antiochus Soter died, 
after having wrestled with the task bequeathed him by 
Seleucus for nineteen years. He was sixty-four years old.^ 

1 At modern Seledik, Radet, Bull. corr. hell. xi. (1887), p. 108 f. 
- Imhoof-Blumer, Numism. Zeitschr. iii. p. 306. 

^ Radet, De coloniis, p. 67 ; Foucart, B^(,ll. corr. hell. xi. (1887), p. 101 ; 
Murray, Asia Minor, p. 85. 

•* Ramsay, Historical Geography, p. 86. ^ Eus. i. p. 249. 


We hear of six children, the two sons of Stratonice, 
Seleucus and Antiochus ; the two daughters of Stratonice, 
Apama, who had married Magas of Gyrene, and Stratonice, 
who was still unmarried at her father's death ; and, lastly, we 
hear of a son and daughter of Antiochus by another (perhaps 
earlier) wife, Alexander and Laodice. This daughter was 
destined to play a prominent part in Asia Minor ; she became 
the wife of her half-brother Antiochus.^ 

Already in the reign of Antiochus I an evil had appeared 
in the Seleucid house, to which no less than to any over- 
mastering circumstances its ultimate ruin was due — the 
division of the house against itself The elder son of 
Antiochus I, bearing the name of his grandfather Seleucus, 
had been designated the successor. From the earlier years of 
the reign of Antiochus till some time between 269 and 265 
he had been associated with his father as joint -king,^ and 
had perhaps been given the government of Babylon and Iran.^ 
Then there came a dark suspicion between father and son. 
Antiochus gave command that the prince was to be put to 
death ; and it was done.^ His younger brother Antiochus 
stepped into his place and was made partner in the throne.^ 

It is hardly possible from our scanty materials to arrive 
at any idea of the personality of the first Antiochus, to 
penetrate to the real man whose work we have been attempt- 
ing to follow. He seems indeed to be typical of his house, 
indefatigably busy in keeping the unwieldy empire together, 
hurrying from one end of it to the other, fighting almost 
incessantly. Nor was he a mere spectator in the battles 
fought under his conduct. At Ipsus, a young man of twenty- 
five, he had commanded the wing attacked by Demetrius 

^ The maiTiage of the children of one father, if the mothers were different, 
but not of uterine brothers and sisters, was allowed by Attic law. The marriage 
of full brothers and sisters, which was of course incestuous to the Hellenic 
conscience (Athen. xiv. 621 a) is not proved in the Seleucid family till 196 
B.C., although the second Ptolemy had begun it in Egypt. 

- Zeitschr. f. Assyr. vii. pp. 226, 234 ; viii. p. 108 ; Schrader, Keilschr. 
Biblioth. iii. 2, p. 136. 

' This is probable, since it was in accordance with the arrangement made by 
Seleucus I in the case of Antiochus. 

* John of Antioch, frag. 56 = F.R.G. iv. p. 558 ; Trog. Prol. xxvi. 

* Michel, No. 486. 


Poliorcetes ; and even as King he took his share of danger 
like the Macedonian and Iranian chiefs from whom he sprang. 
A stone found at Ilion contains a decree of that city con- 
ferring honours on the physician Metrodorus of Amphipolis 
because he had successfully treated King Antiochus for a 
wound in the neck, got in battle.^ He may also be credited 
with a prudent sense of the limits of his power, an honest 
recognition of facts, abandoning, for instance, a useless 
hostility to the Persian houses which had cut off for them- 
selves provinces of the realm, and holding out to them 
instead the hand of friendship. His coins show us a homely 
face, practical, unideal, of a sort of wizen shrewdness, the eyes 
somewhat screwed up, the lips pursed together. The gossip 
that caught at any suggestion of irregular amours did not 
fail to detect a side of weaker sensuality in Antiochus ; it 
dwelt on the story of his enervating passion for his step- 
mother, on the influence exerted upon him by the flute-player 
Sostratus.^ But there were not many princes of whom gossip 
did not find similar stories to tell. 

1 Michel, No. 526. Cf. Wilcken, Pmdy- Wissowa, i. p. 2454. 
■^ Hegesander ap. Athen. i. 19 d; Aristodemus ap. Atlien. vi. 244 /; 
Sext. Emp. adv. gramm. 293. 



It was Antiochus II, now a young man of about twenty-four/ 
who took up the Seleucid inheritance in 262. 

In him, the grandson of Demetrius Poliorcetes, the sensual 
strain was more strongly pronounced than in his father. At 
least the scandal-mongers found him a richer theme. He was 
a hopeless drunkard ; he slept off his morning bouts, only to 
begin again in the evening. Those admitted to his presence 
on official business rarely found him in anything but a 
shocking condition. Vile creatures ruled him by the most 
discreditable sort of influence, such as the Cypriot Aristus 
and his brother Themison.- Themison assumed the name and 
insignia of Heracles and became the object of a regular cult. 
When he entered the lists at public games he was proclaimed 
as Themison a Macedonian, the Heracles of King Antiochus. 
When any person of distinction offered sacrifice on his altar, 
he condescended to reveal himself, disposed on a couch with 
a lion-skin thrown about him, a Scythian bow and club at his 
side.^ Two other persons who enjoyed high consideration at 
the court of Antiochus were Herodotus the buffoon and 
Archelaus the dancer.* The face of Antiochus upon his coins, 
with its full protruding chin and gross jaw, betrays the 
sensual element in his character ; ^ but we should do well to 

^ Wilcken, Fauly- Wissoiva, i. p. 2455. 

^ Phylarch. ap. Athen. x. 438 c; Aeliau. Var. Hist, ii. 41. 

^ Pythermus ap. Athen. vii. 289/. It may be more than a coincidence that 
some of the coins of Antiochus II have a type representing Heracles suated on a 
rock, holding his club, Babelon p. Ix, f. * Hegesander ap. Athen. i. 19 c. 

■^ These characteristics are less seen in the coin given on Plate I than in some 




accept the stories of the scandal-mongers with some reserve, 
or at any rate to remember that there was probably a great 
deal more that might have been said about Antiochus II. 
What sort of idea should we have of Philip of Macedon or 
Julius Caesar if all we knew about them were the stories on 
which gossip loved to dwell ? 

In Asia Minor the reign of the second Antiochus seems, 
from what we can see, to have been till the peace with Egypt 
merely a continuation of the reign of Antiochus the First. 
There were the same questions for the Seleucid court to deal 
with — the internal ones presented to it by the lesser princi- 
palities, Cappadocian, Bithynian, Pergamene, by the hill- tribes 
of the Taurus and by the Galatians, by the Greek cities, and 
the external ones constituted by the relations of the Seleucid 
court with Ptolemy and Antigonus. It is not possible to 
discover anywhere a change of policy consequent upon the 
new reign, except that the quarrel with Eumenes of Pergamos 
seems to have been dropped and a modus vivendi to have been 
discovered which allowed the ruler of Pergamos to hold his 
extended principality as a subordinate or ally of Antiochus. 
With the two dynasties in Cappadocia the relations of the 
Seleucid court continued friendly. To the house of Ariarathes 
indeed it gave its recognition in the way that was most 
impressive by uniting it with the Seleucid house in marriage. 
The Greek king recognized a brother in the barbarian prince. 
It was during the first four or five years of the reign of 
Antiochus II ^ that Ariamnes began to be styled king.^ It 
was about the same time that his son, Ariarathes, whom he 
had associated with himself on the throne, married the daughter 
of Antiochus II, Stratonice.^ A passage of Strabo seems to 
indicate that the region of Cataonia was ceded by Antiochus 
to the new Cappadocian kingdom as his daughter's dowry.* 
In the case of the dynasty of Pontic Cappadocia it is to be 
observed that after Mithridates the Founder, who was 
succeeded by his son Ariobarzanes in 266,^ the kings cease to 

^ Between 260 and 256, Reinach, Trois royaumes, p. 17. 

2 Syncell. i. p. 523. 3 Eyg i_ p, 251 ; Diod. xxxi. 19. 6 

■* Strabo xii. 534 ; cf. Reinach, Trois royaumes, p. 18. 

■^ Reinach, Trois royaumes, p. 161. 


coin in gold — an indication that they are willing to purchase 
the friendship of the Seleucid house by some formal recognition 
of its suzerainty. 

Of the relations of Antiochus and Bithynia we are told 
nothing. About 250 Nicomedes died, and fresh family feuds 
distracted the princely house. He left a wife, Etazeta, and 
some infant sons, but besides these he had by an earlier wife, 
a Phrygian, Ditizele, a grown-up son called Ziaelas.^ Under 
the regime of Etazeta, Ziaelas had been discarded ; he had even 
found his father's court no safe place for him and had 
vanished out of the land. Xicomedes left his kingdom to 
Etazeta's children, placing them by his will under the protec- 
tion of Ptolemy and Antigonus, of Byzantium, Heraclea, and 
Cius. But now Ziaelas, who had been living all this time 
with the king of the Armenians, suddenly reappeared in 
Bithynia at the head of a body of Galatians, Tolistoagil 
A civil war at once raged over the country. The adherents 
of Etazeta were supported by troops from the states under 
whose protection her children had been placed. Ziaelas 
succeeded, however, in conquering first a part, and then the 
whole, of his father's realm. Heraclea, which had taken a 
prominent part in opposing him, was raided by his Galatians. 
"We hear presently of a son of Nicomedes called Zibo3tes2 as 
an exile in Macedonia ; this is no doubt one of the sons of 
Etazeta who had taken refuge with his guardian. King 

With the two other Macedonian kingdoms the relations of 
the Seleucid continued to be the same under Antiochus II as 
under Antiochus I — friendship with the house of Antigonus, 
a state of war with Ptolemy. The former was to be still more 
complicated with the house of Seleucus by another marriage. 
Demetrius, the son of Antigonus Gonatas and Phila, fetched 
in his turn a bride from the Seleucid court, Stratonice, the 
daughter of the elder Stratonice and Antiochus the First, a 
princess who — so involved were now the relations — was at 

1 On his coins ZIAHAA. 

2 Polyb. iv. 50, 9. Tibcetes is obviously another way of writing in Greek the 
same Bithynian name. 

3 Memnon, 22 = F.H.G. iii. p. 537 ; Tzetzes, Chil. iii. 950 f. ; Plin. N.H. yiii. 
144 ; Polyb. iv. 50, 1 ; cf. Reinach, Trois royaumes, p. 100 f. 


once the half-sister and the niece of his mother and the niece 
of his father.^ 

The war with Ptolemy was still, as far as Asia Minor was 
concerned, a war of which the Greek states of the coast and 
the neighbouring islands were both the theatre and the prizes 
of victory. It continued to fluctuate without discoverable 
progress. In the latter years of Antiochus I, or early in his 
son's reign,^ Ephesus, the commercial centre of Asia Minor, 
passed from Seleucid to Ptolemaic possession. A son of 
King Ptolemy's, himself called Ptolemy, commanded the 
garrison which held it — a garrison composed largely, we 
understand, of half-wild men from Thrace.^ This gain, how- 
ever, to the Ptolemaic side was quickly overbalanced by 
losses. Miletus, which we saw lately obsequiously dedicating 
an image of Ptolemy's sister, about this time fell away 
under a tyrant called Timarchus. It has been suggested that 
this man was the Aetolian coudottiere who once descended on 
the coast of Asia and defeated a general of King Ptolemy's.* 
This is very probable, and if so, Timarchus must have seized 
Miletus by a coup de main. At any rate Timarchus the tyrant 
had no idea of being subordinate to either Ptolemy or Seleucid. 
It seemed possible at that moment that the rivalry of the two 
houses might allow petty princes to maintain their independ- 
ence in the midst. At Ephesus the young Ptolemy abjured 
his allegiance to his father and set up for himself. He and 
the tyrant of Miletus made common cause.^ But they had 
miscalculated the forces with which they had to do. Miletus 
was recaptured by Antiochus II, and the demos now turned 
the stream of its flattery upon the Seleucid house. The 
surname of " God," by which Antiochus II was afterwards 

1 Eus. i. p. 249 ; Justin xxviii. 1, 2 ; Agatharchides, frag. 19=F.II.G. iii. p. 
196. Tlie mistake in Justin, "adfratrem Antiochum " (1, 4) is to be explained, 
not as Beloch explains it, by making it refer to Stratonice's nephew Antiocbus 
Hierax, but by supposing that Justin found her described, quite correctly, as 
the sister of King Antiochus (the Second), who was reigning at the time of her 

2 After the Decree of the Ionian Body (Michel, No. 486, see p. 150), where an 
Ephesian appears among the envoys. 

^ Athen. xiii. 593 a. 

* Polyaen. v. 25 ; Frontin. Strateg. iii. 2, 11 ; cf. Niese ii. p. 134, note 6. 

^ Trog. Prol. xxvi. 


distinguished, is said to have been first pronounced in 

The rule of young Ptolemy ^ at Ephesus also came to an 
abrupt end. His Thracian guards, knowing the weakness of 
his position, broke out in mutiny. Ptolemy fled with his 
mistress Irene to the great temple of Artemis. The Thracians, 
undaunted by its sanctities, followed him up and there slew 
him. Irene, holding with one hand to the knocker of the 
door, so as herself also to claim the protection of the goddess, 
with the other sprinkled her lover's blood upon the holy 
things till she too was cut down.^ Ephesus passed once more 
to the Seleucid.* There are two isolated notices which our 
ignorance of the time does not allow us to bring into relation 
with each other or with contemporary events, but which seem 
to show that at some time under Antiochus II the activity of 
the Seleucid house extended to Europe. One of these is the 
statement abstracted from Memnon^ that at one moment 
hostilities were on the point of breaking out between Antiochus 
and Byzantium. The Northern League, which we saw combating 
Antiochus I, seems to have been still in existence. For at 

1 App. Syr. 65. 

2 H. von Prott [Rhein. Mus. liii. (1898), p. 471 f.] identifies Ptolemy, the 
commandant in Ephesus, with the Ptolemy who appears as joint-king in papyri 
before 259-258, but who vanishes after that date. This seems probable. When, 
however, von Prott goes on to identify him also with Ptolemy, the son of Lysi- 
machus, who had once sat for a moment on the Macedonian throne, and with 
Ptolemy the father of the high-priestess, Berenice (see p. 178), and to tell us that 
he followed his mother Arsinoe to Egypt, and was there adopted by King Ptolemy 
as his son, and recognized as heir, he seems to propose a theory which is not 
favoured by the evidence. A fact so momentous as the house of Lysimachus 
coming in this decisive way to the front again could not have failed to leave 
some trace even in our fragmentary records. The Ptolemy at Ephesus could not 
be referred to in both cases simply as the son of his adopted father when his real 
parentage was so illustrious and full of consequence. 

^ Athen. xiii. 593 b. 

* Niese (ii. p. 135) refers to this occasion the conquest of Ephesus by an 
Antiochus described in Frontin. Strateg. iii. 9, 10. Niese (ii. p. 135) cites Inscr. 
in the Brit. Mus. Nos. 403, 423, to prove that Antiochus II gave judgment in 
the dispute between Priene and Samos, and that Sarnos therefore was at one time 
under him. But there is nothing about Samos at all in No. 423, and it is not 
clear to me that Antiochus is mentioned in No. 403, except to date certain events 
by his reign, which might be done because Priene was within his sphere. 

5 Memnou 2Z = F.H.G. iii. p. 538. 


this juncture Heraclea sent a contingent of forty triremes to 
Byzantium, and the war " advanced as far as threats only." ^ 

The other notice^ is one which shows us the Seleucid 
King in person on European soil. He is besieging or has 
taken ^ the Thracian town of Cypsela. Numbers of the old 
Thracian nobility have rallied to his side. Antiochus had 
perhaps espoused the native cause against the new-come 
Galatians who had founded a separate kingdom in this region.^ 
He gave at any rate princely entertainment to the Thracian 
chiefs who joined him. When the Thracians of Cypsela see 
their countrymen walking about the Greek king, ablaze with 
ornaments of gold and silver arms, they declare themselves 
ready, not only to submit, but to fight under his banners. 
[Against whom ? Byzantium ? the Gauls of Tylis ? Ptolemaic 
forces ?] 

We have no details as to the treatment of the Greek cities 
by Antiochus II except his liberation of Miletus. In that 
city a hundred years afterwards the day still lived in the 
imagination of the citizens when Hippomachus the son of 
Athenaeus, an Erythraean who had found favour at the 
Seleucid court, appeared clothed with the royal authority 
to restore freedom and democracy.^ When Eome had 
come to bear rule in Asia, the Ionian Greeks still spoke of 
Antiochus II as " the God," and appealed to the decrees by 
which he had granted them constitutions, as if in fact he 
were the author of their liberties.^ Nevertheless, it is under 
Antiochus II that we find the most opulent and splendid of 
the Ionian cities, Ephesus, after it has been recovered from 

^ Niese (ii. p. 137) brings this dispute between Antiochus and Byzantium into 
connexion with the war by which Byzantium had some time before broken the 
strength of Callatis, a city, Niese supposes, under Seleucid protection. If, how- 
ever, Antiochus intervened as the patron of Callatis, there is some improbability 
that he would have found Heraclea, the mother-city of Callatis, so strenuously 
opposing him. 

2 Polyaen. iv. 16. ^ The readings differ between iiro\t.6pKeL and iirbpdei. 

* The "friendly relations" of these Gauls with Byzantium spoken of by 
Niese (ii. p. 138) seem to have consisted in their exacting an increasingly heavy 
blackmail, or threatening to destroy the fields (Polyb. iv. 46). 

* airbyovo^ vTrdpxovcra 'IinrofjLd[xov'\ rod 'Adtivaiov, 6s /caTi77[a]7ei' t[tj]i' t[€ 
iX^evdepiav (cat 8r)fx.0KpaTiav 7rap[a ^]a(7[i\ews 'ApTi]6xov to[v] deov, Haussoullier, 
Revue de Philol. xxv. (1901), p. 6. "^ Joseph. Arch. xii. § 125. 


Ptolemy, subjected to direct control. It has been suggested ^ 
that Laodice after her divorce maintained at Ephesus a 
separate court of her own. There appears at any rate at the 
time of Antiochus' death a royal official who is expressly 
spoken of as being " set over Ephesus." ^ 

It is to the reign of Antiochus II that the important 
inscription found eighteen years ago (1884) at Durdurkar 
(near the ancient Eriza) belongs.^ It is the one document 
we possess which tells us something of the worship of the 
sovereign established by imperial authority in the realm. 
The cities, as we saw, already offered divine honours to Alex- 
ander and his successors of the first generation. And instances 
of such civic cults recur during our period. There was a 
priest of Antiochus I at Ilion ^ before 277; the Ionian Body 
joined the worship of Antiochus I, his son and joint -king 
Antiochus and Stratonice to that of " the god Alexander " ; ^ 
and games were celebrated by Erythrae in honour of Antiochus 

I after his death, in which he was worshipped by his divine 
name of Saviour.^ At Smyrna, Stratonice was worshipped as 
Aphrodite Stratonicis, and her son Antiochus II was in course 
of time joined with her ; ^ Miletus, as we saw, hailed Antiochus 

II as " God." But all these were cults established by the 
cities ; they were not organized by the imperial government. 
We have no mention of an imperial cult of the King and 
Queen except in the inscription of Durdurkar, and hence it is 
often inferred to have been an innovation of Antiochus II. 
The accidental fact, however, that our one document belongs 
to his reign is not sufficient to establish such an inference ; 
it may indeed have been so ; on the other hand, such a cult 
may quite well have existed as early as the reign of the first 
Seleucus. The document in question is a rescript of Antiochus 
II to Anaximbrotus, presumably the satrap of Phrygia, which 
Anaximbrotus forwards with a covering letter to the district 
officer Dionytas. The King's rescript states that his worship 
is already established in the several satrapies of the realm, 

^ Haussoullier, Eevue de Philol. xxv. (1901), p. 20. 

2 6 iiri TTji 'E<piffov, Phylarch. ap. Athen. xiii. 593 b. Whether he was a civil 
governor or commander of a royal garrison we do not know. 

■' Michel, No. 40. •* Ibid. No. 525. ^ Ibid. No. 486. 

6 Ibid. No. 457. ^ Ibid. No. 19. 



under a high-priest in each satrapy, by whom legal instruments 
are dated, and whose office is therefore probably annual. The 
King has now determined to institute a similar worship of 
the queen Laodice, for which each satrapy is to have a special 
high-priestess. For the satrapy of Anaximbrotus the high- 
priestess appointed is Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy the 
son of Lysimachus, and in her grandfather we may perhaps 
see the great Lysimachus. 

Suddenly in the last years of Antiochus II we find 
a complete revolution in the relation of the powers. The 
dreary war between Seleucid and Ptolemy, which had seemed 
to have become a permanent feature of the world, ceased. It 
not only ceased, but was succeeded by close alliance. Things 
had not gone altogether well with the house of Ptolemy. Its 
successes had been in many cases evanescent. We have seen 
the case of Ephesus and Miletus. It had had another dis- 
appointment which touched it more nearly. The rebel viceroy 
of Gyrene, Magas, Ptolemy's half-brother, who had been the 
ally of Antiochus I, had been brought to a composition with 
the King of Egypt about 258. His daughter by Apama, 
Berenice, was betrothed to the young Ptolemy, the heir of the 
Egyptian throne — an arrangement by which the Egyptian and 
Cyrenian kingdoms would once more coalesce. Unfortunately 
for Ptolemy, Magas, after making this treaty, almost imme- 
diately died, and the Queen-Mother, Apama, coming thereby to 
power, immediately abjured the compact and fetched a husband 
for her daughter from the anti-Ptolemaic court of Macedonia, 
Demetrius the Fair, the brother of King Antigonus, came to 
reign in Gyrene. The influence of the Seleucid queen-mother 
continued paramount, for Demetrius, although nominally the 
husband of Berenice, formed a liaison with Apama herself 
Gyrene was still a thorn in the side of Egypt.^ 

It is implied that Ptolemy took the initiative in proposing 
a peace to Antiochus. He seems to have made it worth the 
Seleucid King's while. He offered the hand of his daughter, 
another Berenice, to Antiochus, who undertook on his part to 

^ Just. xxvi. 3. Apama is here called Arsinoe by a characteristic slovenlineBs 
of Justin. 


repudiate in her favour his present queen, Laodice. The hand 
of Berenice was to bring with it large advantages ; pherno- 
phoros, dowry -bringing, became her popular description.^ 
What these advantages were one can only speculate. They 
may not improbably have included territorial concessions. By 
comparing the hst which Theocritus gives of the countries 
under Ptolemaic influence with those which Ptolemy III 
states (in the description of Aduli) that he inherited from his 
father, it is observed that Cilicia and Pamphylia, which appear 
in the former, are absent from the latter. It is therefore 
likely that the Ptolemaic claims to these regions were 
abandoned in this treaty ; Ptolemy indeed may have already 
been obliged to evacuate them. 

An immediate change came over the Seleucid court. 
Laodice disappeared ; a rival appeared to her sons, Seleucus 
and Antiochus, in a child whom Berenice bore to Antiochus. 
It may be that the residence of the court was now more 
regularly fixed at the Syrian Antioch, towards the Ptolemaic 
realm, instead of in Asia Minor, where Laodice was strong. 
Friendly offices between the houses became at any rate the 
order of the day. The physician, Cleombrotus of Ceos, sent 
possibly from the medical schools of Alexandria, was rewarded 
by Ptolemy with a hundred talents because he had treated 
Antiochus successfully.^ Casks of Nile water were carried 
systematically to Berenice in her new home ; ^ it has been 
pointed out ^ that it had a great reputation for rendering 

All seemed to go smoothly. But the divorced queen was 
not a woman to sit down tamely in her humiliation. She 
worked fiercely to be reinstated, and at last succeeded, for if 
policy bound Antiochus to Berenice, his heart, it is said, 
belonged to Laodice. In 246 Berenice was sitting solitary in 
Antioch, and the King was across the Taurus living once more 
with his former queen. Then he suddenly died at Ephesus.** 

^ Jerome in Dan. 11. 

^ Plin. vii. § 123. The story is told by an error of Erasistratus, Plin. 
xxix. § 5. 

* Athen. ii. 45 e. * Mahaflfy, Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 171. 

Plin. vii. § 33. Eii.s. i. p. 251. 


Laodice (or so it was believed) had cut short his life by 
poison, to prevent the succession of her children being any- 
more endangered by the fluctuations of his mood.^ 

The peace of Asia, so recently secured, instantly vanished. 

^ App. Syr. 65 ; Val. Max. ix. 14 ; Plin. vii. § 53 ; Jerome in Dan. 11, 6. 



§ 1. The War of Laodice 

The Seleucid power had ceased to be a unity. It was 
represented by two rival Queens, both masculine, resolute 
women, after the fashion of these Macedonian princesses, 
Laodice across the Taurus, Berenice in Syria. The son of 
Berenice, who was probably proclaimed King in Antioch, 
was of course an infant in arms ; the eldest son of Laodice, 
Seleucus, was a youth nearing manhood.^ 

Seleucus was proclaimed King in Ephesus and Asia Minor. 
To support his right, as against the child of Berenice, Laodice 
resorted, according to one story,- to the device of dressing up 
a certain Artemon, who bore a close resemblance to King 
Antiochus, and causing him to be laid in the royal bed 
before the King's death was known, in order that in the 
presence of the magnates of the court he might solemnly 
declare his son Seleucus the true heir. Laodice proclaimed 
her son King, but she kept the reins of government in her 
own hands. 

It must come of course to an internecine straggle between 
the two Queen-mothers. In the kingdom itself Laodice, the 
old Queen, was the stronger; Berenice had at her back the 
might of Egypt. It all depended on whether Laodice could 
strike quickly enough. Even in Antioch she had partizans, 

1 He was old enough to take a personal part in war a few years later. His 
younger brother Antiochus is said at a date about 240 to be fourteen (Just, 
xxvii. 2, 7). On this reckoning he would be eight in 246. 

2 Val. Max. ix. 14 ; Tlin. vii. § 53. 



among them Genneus or Caeneus,^ one of the chief magistrates 
of the city. She hit on the bold thought of kidnapping the 
child of her rival. Her emissaries, flying perhaps to Antioch 
almost with the post that brought the news of the King's 
death, arranged the plot. It succeeded. The young prince 

In this extremity Berenice showed the spirit of a lioness. 
The child was believed to have been carried to a certain house. 
Berenice instantly mounted a chariot, took in her own hand a 
spear, and galloped to the spot. On the way Caeneus met her. 
The Queen aimed her spear at him. It missed. Nothing 
daunted, Berenice followed it with a stone, which brought her 
enemy down. A crowd, partly hostile, surged about the closed 
doors, behind which the prince was understood to be. But 
they fell back before the fierce approach of the Queen. And 
here the story is broken off." Another author ^ takes it up at 
a later point. The fate of the young prince is still mysterious ; 
it is not known whether he is alive or dead. Obviously the 
popular feeling in Antioch is so strongly on the side of Berenice 
that the murderers dare not avow what they have done. To 
this body of sentiment Berenice appeals. She shows herself 
to the people in the guise of a suppliant, and the storm of 
public indignation is so strong that the guilty magistrates are 
obliged to dissemble. A child is exhibited to the people as 
the infant King and surrounded with all the due pomp ; they 
have still authority enough to keep this child in their own 
hands. But they are obliged to come to some agreement with 
the Queen and allow her to establish herself in a defensible 
part of the royal palace at Daphne * with a body of Galatian 

This was an awkward turn for the plans of Laodice. 
Everything depended on crushing Berenice before the Egyptian 
force could be brought to bear in her favour. And shut up 
in the palace at Daphne, Berenice could gain time. The 
Ptolemaic power was at this moment in a position to strike 
strongly. The Cyrenaean difficulty had been at last settled 

^ Jerome ad Dan. xi. 6 mentions Icadion and Genneus ; this latter is probably 
the same as the Caeneus of Valerius. 

- Val. Max. ix. 10. ^ Polyaen. viii. 50. * Just, xxvii. 1, 4. 


to its satisfaction. The young Queen, Berenice the daughter 
of Magas, had discovered the relations of her husband Demetrius 
with her mother, and displaying the characteristic spirit of her 
race, caused him to be assassinated in Apama's bed under her 
own eyes. She had then renewed her interrupted betrothal 
with the heir of the Ptolemaic throne. About the time that 
the other Berenice, her cousin, was defying siege at Daphne, 
the old King of Egypt died ; the government passed into young 
and vigorous hands. Ptolemy III ascended the throne, married 
Berenice of Cyrene, and prepared to intervene with the whole 
force of his kingdom in his sister's defence. At the same time 
the struggle between the two Queens was being watched 
breathlessly throughout the Seleucid realm. A number of 
the Greek cities of Asia ^ declared for Berenice, and put on 
foot the civic forces.^ Contingents began to glide out of their 
harbours or to move along the road to Antioch. Berenice had 
only to sit still in her fortress and wait. 

The hope of Laodice to reach her seemed desperate. But 
even so she succeeded. It seems an incredible folly on the 
part of Berenice that she exposed herself — to be instantly cut 
down. But she was led to trust to the oath of her enemies, 
and her physician Aristarchus, by whom she was guided, was 
really Laodice's tool. And here we are told another of those 
strange impersonations which give the whole story of these 
events such a mythical complexion. Berenice's women, it is 
said, after they had done their best to shield her with their 
own bodies and several of them had fallen, concealed her 
corpse, and put one of their number who was wounded, but 
not mortally, in her place, keeping up, till the advent of the 
King of Egypt, the delusion that the Queen and her son were 
still alive.^ 

Meantime Laodice was strengthening herself in Asia Minor. 
Miletus is found hastening to declare its adherence to Seleucus 
II ; its embassy conveys to the young King a wreath of bay 

^ It is impossible to say which, except that Magnesia-on-Sipylus seems to have 
been one ; not Smyrna or Magnesia-on-the-Meander (Michel, No. 19), not Miletus 
(Haussoullier, Revue de Philol. xxv. (1901), p. 125 f.), not Ephesus {FUnders 
Petrie Papyr. ). Laodice was strong in Asia Minor ; it may rather be the cities 
of Syria which are in question. 

'•^ Just, xxvii. 1, 5. ^ Polyaen. viii. 50 ; Just, xxvii. 1, 7. 


leaves, plucked in the sacred enclosure of the Didymaean 
temple.^ Many of the other Greek states must have acted 
likewise. But the attack of Ptolemy III came with terrific 
effect upon the divided kingdom. He appeared at the head 
of his army in Syria, before the death of Berenice and her son 
was certainly known, and in many quarters was regarded rather 
as an ally than a conqueror.^ The states which had flown to 
arms in Berenice's defence, finding themselves too late, had no 
option, now that they had compromised themselves, but to 
join him.^ 

The great events of the following years are obscured by 
the character of our sources. In their loose description we 
seem to see a conquest of Asia which goes beyond the old 
invasions of Tothmes, and even resembles the triumphant 
march of Alexander. If we look more closely, however, we 
shall form, I think, a more moderate estimate of the exploits 
of Ptolemy Euergetes. The war called by contemporaries the 
" Laodicean War " (AaoSt/ceto? TroXe/Ao?) ^ falls into two 
divisions — the maritime war and the land war. Of these the 
maritime is reaUy the more important, and here the successes 
of Ptolemy are more solid. It was on the sea that the 
Ptolemaic power really lay ; it had already, as we have seen, 
secured a number oi points d'appui over the coasts and islands 
of the Levant, and what Ptolemy Euergetes did was to carry 
to its farthest extent the traditional policy of his house. On 
the coasts of Phoenicia, Lycia, and Caria, Ptolemy was already 
predominant ; he possessed Cyprus and the federated Cyclades.^ 
The maritime war of Ptolemy III rounds off the work of 
his father and grandfather. What had been lost in recent 
years, the Cilician coast, for instance, and Ephesus, are 
recovered. The line of Ptolemaic power is carried still farther 
along the coasts. Even the acquisitions of the house of 
Seleucus in Thrace, from which it was necessarily cut off by a 
power dominating the sea, pass to Egypt. 

A moment of this war is lit up for us in a curious way. 
The commander of a Seleucid squadron on the coasts of Asia 

1 Haussoullier, Revue de PMlol. xxv. (1901), p. 126. 

- Polyaen. viii. 50. ^ jug|._ xxvii. 1, 8. 

* Iiiscr. in the Brit. Man. No. 403, 1. 134. ^ Michel, No. 1239. 


sent home a sheet of papyrus giving a narrative of his opera- 
tions. This paper, or pieces of it, worn but still partly 
decipherable, came the other day into the hands of modern 

Where the dispatch begins to be decipherable the capture 
of some town by a detachment of the Ptolemaic forces is 
described, apparently one of the towns of Cilicia. A party 
among the inhabitants seem to have had an understanding 
with the attacking force, and the town was taken by a night 
surprise. A garrison was put in to hold it under an officer called 
Epigenes. Then, after a gap, the document seems to speak of a 
squadron of five ships in the Seleucid service, who, acting on the 
orders of " the Sister," i.e. Laodice, had collected all the money 
they could along the coast and deposited it in (the Cilician) 
Seleucia — 1500 talents in all. In Seleucia the Seleucid 
governor of Cilicia (o ev KiXiKla arpaT7]y6<i), Aribazus, was 
commanding, and his purpose was to forward the moneys now 
collected to Laodice at Ephesus. Before, however, he could 
do so, the town of Soli and the subordinate strategoi of Cilicia, 
the district officers, went over to the Ptolemaic side, and in 
concert with them a Ptolemaic force, under Pythagoras and 
Aristocles, attacked Seleucia. The town, even the citadel, was 
stormed. Aribazus essayed to escape across the Taurus, but 
feU into the hands of the native tribes who lived about the 
passes; they cut off his head and brought it presently to 

The rest of the document narrates operations on the 
Syrian, not the Cilician, coast, in which the writer would 
seem to have taken part in person. A Ptolemaic squadron of 
as many sail as the harbour of (the Syrian) Seleucia was 
understood to be capable of holding, puts to sea in the first 
watch of the night. Its place of starting is conjectured by 
Kohler to be Salamis in Cyprus. About three o'clock the 
following afternoon it strikes the Syrian coast at Posidium, a 
fort some twenty miles south of Seleucia. There it remains 
for the night, and at the next daybreak moves to Seleucia. 
Here it is received with open arms. The priests, the 
magistrates, the populace, the troops of the garrison flock 
down the road to the harbour to meet it in festival array. 


From Seleucia the Ptolemaic force moves upon Antioch itself, 
which was in those days accessible by water. In Antioch 
there is a considerable military force, and the district officers, 
the " satraps " of the neighbouring country, seem to have 
gathered within its walls. And it looks as if Antioch had 
thought at first of ofiering some defence. But the sight of 
the Ptolemaic force convinces it that to do so is hopeless. 
Antioch, like Seleucia, receives the invader. A procession of 
the chief men, satraps, captains, priests, and magistrates, 
accompanied by the " youths from the gymnasium " and the 
populace, all wearing crowns, comes to meet the Ptolemaic 
force. " Thev broucrht all the animals for sacrifice into the 
road without the gate ; some shook our hands, and some 
greeted us with clapping and shouting." There the document 
leaves otf, having: shown us the chief city of Seleucid Svria in 
the hands of King Ptolemy.^ 

For the land war our chief authority is the Monumentum 
Adulitanum, an inscribed stone seen at Aduli in Abyssinia in 
the seventh century a.d. by Cosmas Indicopleustes, who has 
left us a copy of it.- It was a monument put up by some 
Ptolemaic official at that remote station on the Red Sea 
giving an account of the King's conquests. It describes how 
he advanced upon Asia with foot and horse and ships, " and 
elephants," the official is careful to note, whose chief business 
in Aduli was no doubt to replenish the supply, " from the 
Troglodyte coimtry {i.e. the Eed Sea coast) and Aethiopia, 
which his father and he himself were the first to cause to be 
captured in these parts and brought down to Egypt, and to 
train for se^^'ice in war," how he " made himself master of all 
the country this side of the Euphrates {i.e. Northern Syria), 
Cilicia, Pamphylia, Ionia, the Hellespont and Thrace, and of 
all the forces in these countries and the Indian elephants, and 
made all the petty despots in these regions subject to him," 
and then how he crossed the Euphrates and plunged into the 
distant world of Iran, 

It will be obserA'ed that till the passage of the Euphrates 

^ Flinders Peine Papyri (Mahaffy), Part II. No. -15 ; Kohler, SUzung^. der 
konig. Akad. zit Berlin, 1S94, p. -145 f. ; Wilcken, Griechischc Papyri, p. 52. 
•-' Michel, No. 1239. 


no country is mentioned as conquered which is not open to 
attack by sea. The Ptolemaic land forces never crossed the 
Taurus. Having once secured the road through Northern 
Syria (Antioch itself succumbed, as we saw, to an attack from 
the sea) they passed east. In Asia Minor, which hitherto 
rather than Syria had been the Seleucid base, the court of 
Laodice and Seleucus was safe from molestation, except on the 
coast. And even the coast was only partially conquered by 
the Ptolemaic fleet. Ephesus indeed, where Laodice was still 
established when the Ptolemaic captain penned his dispatch, 
passed before long to Ptolemy, the Seleucid court returning, 
no doubt, to the safer distance of Sardis. But Miletus and 
Smyrna remained in the Seleucid alliance. 

The loss of Ephesus can perhaps be traced in the story 
taken from Phylarchus.^ The court is residing at some place 
other than Ephesus, which is not mentioned, but which must 
surely be Sardis. Ephesus, however, is still held, as Sophron, 
the governor of the city (6 eVl t?}? 'E0e<7Of ), has been called to 
the royal presence. He has somehow incurred the displeasure 
of Laodice, and she has determined to make away with him. 
Among Laodice's women, however, is Danae, the daughter of 
that famous courtesan Leontion who had shone among the 
companions of Epicurus : Danae is always at the Queen's side ; 
aU the Queen's purposes are open to her. In past days 
Sophron was her lover. When Sophron stands before the 
Queen, Danae is sitting by the Queen's side. As Laodice and 
Sophron talk, the truth breaks upon Danaii that Laodice is 
inviting him to his destruction. She makes him a quick 
imperceptible sign. It is understood. He feigns to agree 
generally with the Queen's proposals but asks for two days 
further to consider. Laodice assents. The next night Sophron 
flies for his life to Ephesus. Then Laodice understood what 
Danae had done. Instantly old friendship was swallowed up in 
vindictive fury. Danae was haled as a criminal before her, 
but the questions which Laodice put to her she met with 
disdainful silence. She was led away to be hurled from a high 
place. As she went she made an utterance which those 
about her thought worthy of record. " The common run of 

' Atheu. xiii. 593 c. 


men make small account of religion, and they are quite right. 
I saved the man that was my lover, and this is the recognition 
I get from the Powers which dispose of us. Laodice killed 
hers, and she is thought to deserve all that honour." 

Sophron fled to Ephesus. That was no safe place, if it was 
still to be in Laodice's possession. It was probably Sophron 
who now called in the Ptolemaic forces. It is found at any 
rate a few years later occupied by a Ptolemaic garrison, and a 
Sophron appears in command of a Ptolemaic fleet.^ 

The young king Seleucus seems early to have gone at the 
head of an army across the Taurus to defend or to regain the 
Syrian and eastern provinces.^ It went hard in his absence, 
and the absence of the troops which followed him, with the 
adherents of his house along the coast. Smyrna, for instance, 
was exposed to attack, not only from the Ptolemaic fleets, but 
from its neighbour, Magnesia-on-Sipylus, where there was a 
great military settlement which declared against Laodice and 
Seleucus and harried its fields.^ Smyrna, at any rate, stood 
fast, and in this region the Seleucid cause held its own. The 
Magnesian colony was compelled to return to the old alliance, 
and at some subsequent date was incorporated by the 
Smyrnaeans in their own state.* 

On Smyrna in return for its fidelity the King was con- 
cerned to shower favours. He gave the usual promise that 
the city should continue autonomous and be free of tribute.^ 
He also guaranteed it in the possession of all the territory it 
already stood possessed of, and promised to restore any it had 
formerly owned. More than this, he interested himself warmly 
in what was the chief interest of the city, its great temple 
of Aphrodite - Stratonicis. Smyrna would secure a great 
advantage if it could shield itself by the sanctity of its shrine, 
if it could be treated as "holy and inviolable" {lepa koI 
ciav\o<;). It could only obtain this advantage in so far as the 
independent powers of the world, any who had the material 

^ Trog. Prol. xxvii. reading "Antigonus Audro prcelio navali Sophrona 
vicerit" (C. Miiller) for MS. " Antigonum Andro prodio navali oprona vicerit." 
2 See Ai)i)eudix K. 

^ Smyrnaean Inscr. (Michel, No. 19), 1. 1-3 ; 1. 42, 43. 
■* Smyrnaean Inscr. 1. 19, 20. 
5 Michel, No. 258, Smyrnaean Inscr. 1. 11, 12. 


force to molest it, would consent to recognize its sanctity. To 
obtain this recognition was the object it had in view. It 
began by procuring a pronouncement of the Delphic oracle in 
favour of its claims. Armed with this, it approached the 
Seleucid king. Seleucus threw himself heartily into the cause 
of the faithful city. He addressed letters to all the states of 
the Greek world, " to kings and rulers and cities and nations," ^ 
asking them to recognize the temple of Aphrodite-Stratonicis 
as a sanctuary and Smyrna as a city holy and inviolable. One 
of the answers has been preserved, that of the city of Delphi, 
which, as the original oracle had proceeded from them, is 
naturally favourable. It charges the theoroi, who were sent 
round the Greek states to invite them to the Pythian games,^ 
to bestow special commendation on King Seleucus both for his 
piety in obeying the oracle and his honourable treatment of a 
Greek city.^ 

Ptolemy did not continue to direct the Asiatic campaigns 
in person. After his raid into the eastern provinces he 
returned to Egypt, where troubles had broken out which called 
for his presence.* But the war did not thereby come to an 
end. Ptolemy left officers to govern in his name both in the 
West and in the East, in Cilicia his " friend " Antiochus, in the 
provinces beyond the Euphrates " another general, Xanthippus." ^ 
One would like to know on what principle Ptolemy at this 
juncture framed his policy. He has been commended for wise 
moderation in withdrawing after his triumphal march. And 
indeed the traditional policy of his house was to set a prudent 
limit to ambition. But the texts hardly show the action of 

^ Smyrnaean Inscr. 1. 11. 

^ HaussoulUer supposes that the celebration of the games in question is that 
of the year 238. It might be the one before, that of 242. 

3 Michel, No. 258. ^ Just, xxvii. 1, 9. 

^ " Ciliciam autem amico suo Antiocho gubernandam tradidit et Xanthippo 
alteri duci provincias trans Euphraten," Jerome in Daniel, 11, 9. The theory of 
Niebuhr and Droysen that this Antiochus is Antiochus Hierax, the younger 
brother of Seleucus, has now been generally abandoned (Beloch, Wilcken, 
Bouche - Leclerq, Niese, HaussoulUer). A probable conjecture (Lenschau, De 
rebus Prienensium, p. 204) identifies him with the Antiochus virb rod ^aaiX^us 
TlToXefiatov reraytMivos, who appears in the affair of Samos and Priene {Inscr. in 
the Brit. Mus. No. 403, 1. 153). If so, HaussoulUer is probably right in conjec- 
turing that the province of Antiochus was the whole strip of coast, so far as it 
was subject to Egypt, from Cilicia to Ionia Revue de Philol. xxv. (1901), p. 145. 


Ptolemy III. in this light. His personal return is tw evacuation 
of the conquered countries. In that moment of intoxicating 
glory, in the prostration of the rival house, Ptolemy III seems 
really to have contemplated making himself king of Asia as 
well as of Egypt. He actually intends to govern Ir^n from 
Alexandria as a dependency. It is not his prudence, but the 
force of circumstances, which makes him abandon the idea. 

But although the return of Ptolemy to Egypt did not 
mean a suspension of hostilities, the absence of the King 
relaxed the pressure upon his enemies. Seleucus now took 
strenuously in hand the reconquest of Northern Syria and the 
revolted cities of the coast. A great armada was fitted out 
in one of the harbours of Asia Minor, and presently took the 
sea. It met, however, with a storm which completely shattered 
it — as the fleet of Seleucus' son was later on shattered in the 
same dangerous waters — and few, according to Justin, beside 
the King himself escaped to land.^ After this, Justin goes on, 
the cities were so sorry for him that they joined him of their 
own accord — a passage over which modern writers make very 
merry, perhaps undervaluing the part which sentiment plays 
even now in human politics. As a matter of fact, it seems 
probable that the cities of Northern Syria were really attached 
to the house which had planted and fostered them, and that 
they had conceived themselves, not so much to be revolting 
against that house, as standing by its wronged representatives, 
Berenice and her son, in whose name the King of Egypt had 
summoned them. It would therefore be natural that as soon 
as it became apparent that the house of Seleucus was to be 
crushed altogether, and that they were to be annexed to Egypt, 
a great wave of compunction should sweep over them. 

Of this phase in the war, that which is marked by the 
Seleucid house recovering Northern Syria, no detail is preserved 
except the bare statement of Eusebius that in the year 142-141 
(Olym. 134. 3) Orthosia on the Phoenician coast, which was 
being besieged by a Ptolemaic force, was relieved by Seleucus, 
who brought up reinforcements.^ 

^ Just, ixvii. 2, 1. 

^ Eus. i. p. 251. A notice of the Chronicum Pasehale (p. 330, Bonn) 
assigns to about the same time the foundation of Kallinikon on the Euphrates, 


In the next phase of the war Seleucns passes from 
recovering his father's share of Syria to attacking the Ptolemaic. 
The war of defence became a war of reprisals. An encounter, 
somewhere in Palestine, took place between the two hosts. 
Seleucus was completely beaten. He withdrew the shattered 
remnant of his army of invasion to Antioch. His position 
was once more critical, for he had no force left wherewith to 
meet the counterstroke of his enemy.^ 

The operations in Syria had drawn the Seleucid King for the 
most part to the regions south of the Taurus ; they had made 
Antioch on the Orontes rather than Sardis or Ephesus the 
pivot of his kingdom. But meantime the Queen -Mother, 
Laodice, was still reigning in Asia Minor, and had her younger 
son, Antiochus, joined with her, a boy at that time of some 
fourteen years. In his extremity Seleucus now addressed an 
entreaty to his brother to cross the Taurus to his assistance.^ 
This request seems to show that a certain independent authority 
was exercised by Antiochus in Asia Minor, or rather by those 
who governed in the boy's name, his mother Laodice and her 
friends.^ And this inference finds a separate confirmation in 
an inscription from the temple at Branchidae,* which contains 
a list of offerings made to the shrine by " the kings Seleucus 
and Antiochus." The Antiochus here is therefore one who 
shares the royal authority ; that he does so as a subordinate is 
shown by the fact that the letter accompanying the gifts runs 
in the name of King Seleucus alone.^ 

but, as Niese remarks, the Chronicum is so full of blunders that not much weight 
can be attached to it. In this notice some confusion at any rate is evident. It 
dates 01. 134. 1 (244-243), but gives the consuls of 242. 

1 Just, xxvii. 2, 4. 2 Tbid. 2, 6. 

■' This conclusion was drawn from the text by Niebuhr, and although his 
identification of Antiochus Hierax with the friend of King Ptolemy be dropped, 
this conclusion appears to me to hold good still. The alternative interpretation 
(Wilcken, Pauly- Wissowa, i. p. 2457) that what Seleucus besought was only that 
Antiochus should personally come to his help at the head of the Seleucid forces 
in Asia Minor seems unsatisfactory. That the forces should be led by a child of 
fourteen would be no great thing for Seleucus to secure ; the forces themselves 
were what he wanted ; if they were subject to no authority but his, he had but 
to order his generals to bring them up. ■* Michel, No. 39. 

5 I follow Haussoullier {Revue de PMlol. xxii. (1898), p. 121 : xxiv. (1900), p. 
257) in adhering to the older view that these kings are Seleucus II and 
Antiochus Hierax, not Seleucus I and Antiochus I (Soldau, Wilckeu, etc.). 


To secure the co-operation of his brother's court, Seleucus 
offered to make a partition of the Empire, to cede the trans- 
Tauric country to Antiochus. Whether the cession was to 
be absolute or whether he reserved to himself any right of 
suzerainty we are not told.^ If his mother and her friends 
were already the real rulers of that region, the offer of Seleucus 
amounted simply to a recognition of existing facts. The 
events which followed this proposition are touched on so 
summarily by Justin that it is scarcely possible to follow the 
connexions between them. At first the court of Sardis 
closed, or feigned to close, with it. The forces of Asia Minor 
were set in motion to join those in Syria. This co-operation 
between the two Seleucid courts seems not to have entered 
into Ptolemy's calculations, although why it should not have 
done so, when it seems the most natural thing to expect, we 
cannot say. Perhaps there were already signs of rivalry and 
dissension between them. At any rate, on getting word of 
the advance of the trans -Tauric army, Ptolemy, instead of 
following up his recent victory, concluded a peace for ten 
years with Seleucus.^ 

§ 2. The Fraternal War 

Antiochus, however, did not join his forces with those of 
Seleucus. The concession made by the elder king seems to 
have been used to bring all power in Asia Minor more 
absolutely into the hands of the court of Sardis. As soon 
as that had been done, the mask was thrown off and a claim 
was advanced to the whole Seleucid Empire.^ The people, 

On the other hand it appears to me more likely that the dedication was made 
before the formal cession of the trans-Tauric country to Antiochus than after it, 
as Haussoullier {Revue de Philol. xxv. (1901), p. 140) supposes. Surely a letter 
to a city of Asia Minor could not have run in the name of King Seleucus alone 
when once Asia Minor had been made over to Antiochus. 

^ Just, xxvii. 2, 6. 

"^ Rid. 2, 9. Beloch conjectures that Justin has here misunderstood 
his authority, which said that Ptolemy concluded a peace after a imr of ten 
years, not a peace for ten years. That, of course, is possible ; but so are many 
other mistakes possible in our texts, which we cannot, however, correct at pleasure 
without losing ourselves in unlimited scepticism. 

^ Just, xxvii. 2, 7. 


who were acting behind the boy Antiochus, were of course the 
Queen-Mother Laodice^ and her friends. Amongst these the 
chief place was held by the Queen's brother, Alexander, who 
probably performed the functions of viceroy of the trans- 
Tauric country.^ 

With this breach between the brother kings there began 
for Asia Minor a period of civil war which must have dealt 
the country far deeper wounds than the war between Seleucid 
and Ptolemy, which affected only its seaward fringes. Seleucus, 
crippled as he had been by his recent defeat in Palestine, had 
still enough authority in the Empire to gather a force about 
him with which he crossed the Taurus to crush this new 
rebellion. Nowhere along the great high-road did the 
partizans of Antiochus arrest his march onwards. He was 
already in Lydia before his army met that of his brother. 
The first battle went in his favour. He fought another, and 
again successfully. But his victory was stayed by the strong 
city of Sardis, where the party of Antiochus found a sure 

It was now, however, seen what danger to the central 
government lay in all those independent elements in Asia 
Minor. A disturbance such as the rebellion of Antiochus 
Hierax * communicated unrest to all the peninsula. The task 
of Seleucus was indefinitely complicated. Antiochus had only 
to hold up his hand to bring up hordes of Galatians. In 
some quarters the cause of Antiochus and the Queen -Mother 
was more favourably regarded than that of the elder king, 
who indeed had been for much of the time since his accession 
absent from the country. 

We last saw the dynast of Pontic Cappadocia employing 
Galatian bands against the Ptolemaic forces, apparently in 
alliance with the Seleucid King (p. 154). Since then Mithri- 
dates the Founder had died in a good old age of eighty-four 
years,^ and had been succeeded by his son Ariobarzanes (in 
266). Of the reign of Ariobarzanes we know nothing except 

^ Kal TT]v fjLijT^pa ffvWafipdvovcrau elxev, Plutarch, Dcfrat. ainore, 18. 
^ See Appendix L. ^ Eus. i. p. 251. 

^ Hierax, of course, is not an official surname, but a jiopular nickname, the 
"Hawk." •' Lucian, Macrob. 13. 



that he got into difficulties with his Galatian mercenaries^ 
and has left no coins. He died about 250,'^ and was followed 
by another Mithridates, who at his father's death was still a 
boy. Under such circumstances the Galatian troubles grew 
worse, and the Pontic territory was so harried that famine 
stared the population in the face. Heraclea, whose friendly 
connexion with the Mithridatic house continued, sent what 
help it could, and had in consequence to bear a Galatian 
attack in its turn.^ And now, some ten years later, the 
breach in the Seleucid house brings the Pontic king once more 
upon the stage. With this Iranian dynasty also, as with that 
in Southern Cappadocia, the great Macedonian house had 
mingled its blood. One sister of Seleucus II was the wife of 
Ariarathes ; the other sister he gave in marriage to Mithri- 
dates II, with Greater Phyrgia (or so the Pontic house 
afterwards asserted) for dowry.* 

At this juncture Mithridates declares in favour of his 
younger brother-in-law, Antiochus, and enters the field at the 
head of a great army of Galatians. 

The intervention of the Pontic king and his fierce 
mercenaries gave a new turn to the struggle. A great battle, 
one of the landmarks of that confused epoch, took place near 
Ancyra.^ The forces of Seleucus were swept down by the 
Galatian onset. Twenty thousand are said to have perished. 
At the end of that day of blood Seleucus himself was 
nowhere to be found. The news ran through the host of the 
victors that he was dead. The youth who by such an event 
became the sole and unrivalled possessor of the Seleucid throne 
displayed or affected great sorrow. Antiochus put on the garb 
of mourning and shut himself up to bewail his brother. Then 
the tidings came that he had lamented, or rejoiced, too soon. 
Seleucus was still alive. He had disafuised himself as the 


^ Memnon 2^ = F.H.G. iii. p. 538. ^ Reinach, Trois royawines, p. 164. 

» Memnon '2.\ = F.H.G. iii. p. 538. 

■* Eus. i. p. 251 ; Just, xxxviii. 5, 3. See Appendix M. 

■'' Eus. says "in Cappadocia." The explanation probably is that Ancyra was 
in that part of Phrygia which Seleucus had allowed Mithridates to annex to his 
Cappadocian realm. The battle taking place here seems to show an attempt on 
the part of Seleucus to cut the communications between Sardis and the Pontic 


armour-bearer of Hamactyon, who commanded the Eoyal 
Squadron {^acrCKtKr) XXrf), and had escaped so from the fatal 
field. He was now beyond the Taurus, safe in Cilicia, rallying 
once more about him what remained of his power. Antiochus 
came out of his retirement, offered a sacrifice of thanksgiving 
for his brother's welfare, decreed public festivities in the cities 
subject to him, and sent an army to cross the Taurus and 
crush Seleucus before he had time to recover.^ 

One story which the Greeks remembered in connexion 
with this battle was that of Mysta, Seleucus' concubine. Like 
the old Persian kings, the Seleucids took women with them in 
their camps. As soon as she saw the day was lost, Mysta also 
disguised herself. She had been dressed as a queen ; she now 
put on the habit of a common serving-maid and sat among 
the huddled women, who fell after the battle into the victor's 
hands. She was put up for sale with others, bought by some 
slave-merchant, and carried to the great market of Ehodes. 
Ehodes was soil friendly to Seleucus, and once there she made 
herself known. The Khodian state instantly paid her price to 
the merchant and sent her back with every due observance to 
the King.2 

§ 3. Antiochus Hicrax and Attains of Pergamos 

The battle of Ancyra shattered the cause of Seleucus II in 
Asia Minor. It would be out of the question for some time 
to come for him to attack his brother. But the disappearance 
of Seleucus meant less the reign of Antiochus than anarchy. 
The Galatians knew their power ; it was easy by their help to 
overthrow any existing authority, but it was not possible to 
base upon it any secure throne. Antiochus himself found his 
life full of vicissitude enough ; at one moment marching over 
the Phrygian uplands at the head of his Galatian bands, 
levying a blackmail which can only by courtesy be described 
as the tribute due to the royal treasury ; ^ at another moment 

^ Eus, i. p. 251 ; Just, xxvii. 2, 10 ; Trog. Prol. xxvii. ; Plutarch, IJc 
fraJt. amore, 18. 

- Polyaeu. viii. 61 ; Athen. xiii. 593 c, both from Phylarchus. 
5 Eus. i. p. 251. 


bargaining for his life with the same bands,^ or by hairbreadth 
escapes breaking away from them and throwing himself into 
friendly cities, like Magnesia ; ^ then meeting and beating 
them in open battle ; then again raiding, as before in their 

The unhappy Greeks of Asia looked round for a deliverer 
from the deluge of anarchy and barbarism. This then was 
what the Macedonian rule, which had ousted the Persian with 
such fair promises, had come to. There were two powers 
which seemed to offer resistance to the barbarian storm in the 
land of the Asiatic Greeks, the Ptolemaic and the Pergamene. 
Ptolemy saved at least the cities he held, like Ephesus and 
the Carian harbours, from barbarian dictation. We even 
hear, on an occasion when Antiochus had broken with his 
mercenaries, of help being sent him from a neighbouring 
Ptolemaic garrison.* But it was Attains of Pergamos who now 
came forward as the main champion of Hellenism and order. 

The figure of this man, who had succeeded his cousin 
Eumenes in 241-240, embodying so much of that age, is obscured 
for us by the defects of our tradition. And yet even so he is 
significant for us, connecting in his person an epoch that was 
passing away with one that began a new state of things. Now 
when he first appears in the eye of the world, the great 
Macedonian houses, the heirs of Alexander, are the cardinal 
powers of the Eastern Mediterranean ; his last breath is spent 
in exhorting the peoples of Greece to accept the hegemony of 
Eome. It was his wars on behalf of civilization in Asia Minor 
against the barbarian tribes which first made him a name. 
These wars are a glorious, but almost forgotten, episode of 
Greek history. We may indeed believe that they were some- 
what artificially magnified by the Pergamene court, which 
loved to put them in the same order as the classical struggles 
between light and darkness, order and chaos, Hellenism and 
barbarism, to set them beside the battles of Gods and giants, 
of Athenians and Amazons, of Greeks and Persians. It was 
these scenes, together with those of the Galatian wars, which 
the sculptors commissioned by the rulers of Pergamos had to 

^ Just, xxvii. 2, 11. - Eus. loc. cit. 

3 Just, xxvii. 2, 12. * Eus. i. p. 251. 


set before the eyes of the Greek cities.^ But that the glory 
claimed by Attains he did to a large extent deserve, there is 
no reason to deny. A genuine sentiment seems to have thrilled 
the Greek world as the contest was victoriously carried on. 
A current oracle, cited by Pausanias, represents Attains as a 
deliverer divinely raised up for the Asiatic Greeks, almost a 
demi-god himself — 

Tiien having crossed the narrow strait of the Hellespont 

The destructive army of the Gauls shall pipe ; they shall lawlessly 

Ravage Asia ; and God shall make it yet worse 

For all who dwell by the shores of the sea 

For a little while. But soon the son of Kronos shall stir up a helper 

for them, 
A dear son of a Zeus-reared bull, 
Who shall bring a day of doom on all the Gauls.'^ 

In days when art had begun to languish because the old 
enthusiasms were dying away, the struggle with the barbarism 
of Asia Minor called a new and original school into being, not 
indeed reaching the serene heights which the children of those 
who had fought at Marathon and Salamis attained, but dis- 
playing a vigorous realism, a technical mastery and a lively 
feeling for dramatic effect. 

No narrative of these wars remains. Historians mention 
them summarily. When even the Seleucid house had come to 
pay blackmail to the Gauls, " Attains," says livy, " first among 
all the inhabitants of Asia refused. His bold resolution was, 
contrary to the expectation of all, backed by fortune. He 
met them in fair field and came off victor." ^ " His greatest 
achievement," Pausanias says, " was compelling the Gauls to 
retreat from the coast into the territory which they stiU 
occupy." * Sometimes a particular battle is spoken of,^ a 
" great battle," Strabo calls it ; ^ a battle " at Pergamos " is 
mentioned in a Prologue of Trogus.'^ According to the text 
of Justin^ the battle took place immediately after the battle 

1 E. Gardner, Handbook of Greek Sculpture, p. 452 f. 

2 Paus. X. 15, 3, trans. Frazer. ^ Liv. xxxviii. 16, 14. 
* Paus. i. 8, 1 (trans. Frazer, vol. i. p. 11). 

^ viKTiffas fidxii FaXdras (Polyb. xviii. 41, 7), as Livy (xxxiii. 21, 3) translates 
" victis deinde prcelio uno Gallis." 

^ xiii. 624. ' Prol. xxvii. ^ xxvii. 3, 2. 


of Ancyra, before the victors had had time to recover from the 
effects of that great day, Antiochus himself being still with 
the Galatians — if indeed it be the same battle which is meant 
in the narrative of Justin and in the Prologue, or the phrase 
" saucios adhuc ex superiore congressione integer ipse " be not 
an antithesis thrown in for mere rhetorical effect. It is difficult 
to see how the victorious army of Ancyra should have engaged 
Attains at Pergamos, more than 250 miles away, before they 
had recovered from the wounds of their former battle. 

When, however, we turn from the historians to what 
remains of the stones of Pergamos, the wars of Attains appear 
no affair of one battle and instant victory. They show Attalus 
making dedication to the gods of trophies from a great number 
of battles. Sometimes the state of the stone allows us to read 
the denotation of the enemy and the site of the battle, some- 
times both are conjectural. It is at any rate impossible to 
arrange the battles in any connected narrative or even to fix 
their order in time. In one Antiochus and two of the 
Galatian tribes, the Tolistoagii and the Tectosages, are coupled 
together ; it is the battle fought " near the Aphrodisium " ; ^ 
unfortunately it is impossible to identify the Aphrodisium in 
question. In another the ToHstoagii are mentioned alone, 
the battle " by the sources of the Caicus." '^ In another 
Antiochus is mentioned alone, the battle in Hellespontine 
Phrygia.^ One inscription speaks of a battle in which Attalus 
defeated the Tolistoagii and Antiochus a second time,^ whether 
identical or not with any of those just mentioned we do not 
know. From all this we can gather little except that the 
struggle of Attalus with the forces of anarchy was prolonged 
and swept over the country between the valley of the Caicus 
and Bithynia.^ 

This contest lifted the Pergamene dynast to an altogether 
new position in Asia Minor. As he had taken over from the 

1 Frankel, Inschrift. von Perg. No. 23 = C.I.G. 3536. 

2 Frankel, Nos. 20, 24. ^ /j^vZ. No. 22. * Ibid. No. 247. 

^ A somewhat idle question (as it seems to me) has been debated whether 
Attalus combated the Gauls "as a nation" or as the mercenaries of Antiochus, 
The Gauls did not form a compact state but a free element, which was equally 
mischievous whether the hordes raided on their own account or in the name of 
a Seleucid, Bithynian, or Pontic prince. Even when they let out their swords, 


house of Seleucus the work which they professed to perform 
in that country, the protection of Hellenism and civilization, 
so he stepped into their dignities. After the battle of Ancyra 
indeed, with the elder Seleucid king driven across the Taurus, 
and the younger turned into a captain of freebooters, Seleucid 
authority ceased in Asia Minor. In that part of the country 
which had once obeyed mandates from Sardis or Antioch it 
was now the armies of Attains who marched along the roads, 
and his officers who began to claim the tribute of Lydian and 
Phrygian villages. From this time the dynast of Pergamos 
assumed the title of King.^ 

To the Greek cities the substitution of the Pergamene for 
the Seleucid house was probably welcome. The Aeolian cities 
at any rate, as well as Alexandria, Ilion and Lampsacus, 
became his cordial allies. Even Smyrna, which had been so 
eminent for its loyalty to the Seleucid house, now changed 
about, swore fidelity to Attains, and was henceforward 
altogether alienated at heart from the Seleucid cause.^ 
Attains presented himself to the Greeks in the most attractive 
light. Not only was he their champion against barbarism, as 
indeed the house of Seleucus in its better days had been, but 
he did everything to show himself an ardent Hellenist and to 
exhibit at his court a wholesome family life which would form 
a contrast in the eyes of the Greek hourgoisie to the barbaric 
vice and cruelty which were rife in the Seleucid and Ptolemaic 
courts. His mother Antiochis was a kinswoman of the 
Seleucid house,^ and his maternal aunt Laodice was the wife 
of Seleucus II, but Attalus himself elected for his queen 
ApoUonis, the daughter of a plain citizen of Cyzicus, " a 
woman," says Polybius, " deserving for many reasons remark 
and admiration," who " rose from a private station to royalty, 
and kept her high place to the last by means of no 
meretricious seductions, but by a plain and sober dignity and 

they, rather than their employers, seem to have been the masters. Attalus, it 
is true, employed Gallic bands himself on occasion (Polyb. v. 77 f.), but he does 
not sf>em to have fallen under their domination, and for that very reason had to 
part with them. 

1 Strabo xiii. 624. '^ Polyb. v. 77 f. 

^ As is sliown by her name, by the name of her sister Laodice, and by the 
fact that the Seleucid king chooses his wife from this family. 


goodness." ^ Instead of the fraternal feuds and family murders 
which seemed to be elsewhere the rule in royal houses, the 
children of Attahis and Apollonis showed the world a 
delightful picture of simplicity and natural affection. And 
whilst the house of Attains recommended itself to the moral 
sentiments of the Greek republics, it did so equally to their 
literary and artistic susceptibilities. "Pergamos," says the 
historian of Alexandrine literature, " was in all probability the 
source of that renewal of Atticism to which we owe in great 
part the preservation of the masterpieces of Attic prose." ^ 
Attains maintained close relations with a number of the great 
literary men of his time, especially with the philosophers of 
Athens. An Athenian poet, Ctesiphon, was given a high 
place in his civil service.^ Eesearch into the peculiarities of 
his own dominion was encouraged. Polemon of Ilion cast his 
essay on the local cults and deities into the form of a " Letter 
to Attains." Attains himself wrote ; from one work of his a 
fragment is still preserved, describing a certain pine-tree in 
the Troad.* The school of artists, which developed under his 
patronage, has been already mentioned. And not only did 
Pergamos itself become a city gloriously beautified to the eyes 
of the Greeks with the monuments and altars which com- 
memorated the Galatian wars, but works of art in other cities 
testified to the munificence of the Pergamene king. Athens 
especially he delighted to honour.^ If the ideal of the phil- 
Hellenic king, which had been more or less pretended to by all 
the successors of Alexander, was capable of realization at all, 
it seemed to be realized in Attains. 

On some points we are imperfectly informed. What were 
the relations between this new-grown power in Asia and the 
house of Ptolemy, which had so many footholds on the coast ? 
We do not even know what the relations were between Attains 
and Seleucus. Was the king who reigned on the Orontes 
content to see a new king arising in Asia Minor to counter- 
balance Antiochus Hierax, and the territory which he himself 

1 Polyb. xxii. 20. 

^ Susemihl, Geschichte der griech. Lit. in der Alexand. vol. i. p. 4. 

* 5i.Ka(XTT]s jiaaiXiKQv tQv irepl tt]v AloKida, Demetrius of Scepsis ap. Atheii. 
T.v. 697 c. 

* Strabo xiii. [i. 603. ^ See Frazer, Pausanias, vol. ii. p. 322. 


could not wrest from his brother passing at any rate out of 
his brother's hands ? ^ 

All this time Sardis continued to maintain the semblance 
of a Seleucid capital. How long Laodice reigned there we do 
not know. According to Appian ^ her end was to be killed 
by Ptolemy Euergetes.^ The court over which she had presided 
continued to subsist as that of King Antiochus.* If Attalus 
was supported by the Hellenic element in Asia Minor, 
Antiochus was in close association with the barbarian powers. 
He married a daughter of Ziaiilas, the Bithynian king.'' He 
was also, as we have seen, in alliance with Mithridates, and 
seems to have contemplated at some time before his death 
marrying a daughter of the Pontic king, whether in succession 
to, or side by side with, the Bithynian queen we do not know. 
A daughter of Mithridates, at any rate, whom we may by her 
name, Laodice, conjecture to be the issue of Antiochus' sister, 
is found to be at one time in his hands.^ Among the Pisidians 
Antiochus had his friends ; Logbasis, a prominent citizen of 
Selge, was among his familiars, and it was at Selge, among the 
Pisidian hills, that Laodice, the Pontic princess, whom he 
probably intended to marry, grew to womanhood.'^ Even with 
an Armenian petty king, Arsames, he had relations of close 

^ Niese (ii. p. 156, note 1) adduces it as evidence that Attalus was allied with 
Seleucus that in the Smjrnaean Inscription it is provided that one of the copies 
of the alliance between Smyrna and Magnesia is to be put up in the temple at 
Gryneum in Pergamene territory. If, however, the Smyrnaean Inscription 
belongs to a date before the battle of Ancyra, this would not be strong evidence 
for a time when the situation in Asia Minor had been vastly modified. 

2 Syr. 65. '^ See Appendix N. 

* The coins commonly assigned to Antiochus Hierax cannot, Mr. Macdonald 
tells me, be his, since they are found, not in Asia Minor, but in the far east of 
the Empire. This confronts numismatists with a double problem, (1) Whose are 
these coins ? and (2) Where are the coins of Antiochus Hierax ? These questions^ 
in Mr. Macdonald's view, have not yet been satisfactorily answered. 

5 Eus. i. p. 251. 6 poiyb. V. 74, 4 ; cf. viii. 22, 11. 

■^ Polyb. V. 74, 4 f. According to one restoration of Friinkel, Inschr. von Perg. 
No. 25, we have an epigrapliical record of the alliance between Antiochus and 
the Pisidians. awb t^s 7ra/)[d r^s irpbs . . .] /cai Toys 2eX[7ers Kal 'AvtIoxov ho-x^^]- 
But we should more probably restore toi)s 2eX[ei''/cou aTpaT7)yovs\ See Gabler, 
Erythrd, p. 48. 

* Polyaen. iv. 17, (pl\os &v 'Apo-d.S??! MSS. The form ' Kpaifirjs is got from the 
coins, Babelon, Bois de Syrie, p. cxciii. 


Pushed on the west by the victorious arms of Attalus, 
Antiochus began to think of restoring his fortunes at his 
brother's expense in the east. He attempted to turn the 
position of Seleucus in Syria by crossing the Euphrates high 
up and then descending upon Mesopotamia by way of the 
friendly kingdom of Arsames. But in the plain the armies of 
his brother were waiting to receive him. They were led by 
Achaeus and his son Andromachus, two persons of the highest 
rank in the kingdom, for Achaeus was the father-in-law of 
King Seleucus.^ Antiochus fared badly at their hands. After 
his defeat a discreditable abuse of those courtesies which in 
ancient warfare were connected with the burial of the dead 
enabled him to cut down four thousand of his brother's troops 
unarmed; but his cause was none the less lost.- He took 
refuge at the court of Ariamnes in Cappadocia, where his sister 
Stratonice was queen.^ But he had not been there long before 
he discovered that though all was smiles about him, his host 
had an understanding with Seleucus, and was preparing to 
deliver him up.* He once more fled. It seems that he made 
one last desperate attack upon Attalus (229-228). We hear 
of four battles, two " in Lydia," one by Lake Coloe, and one 
in Caria,^ They only served to complete his ruin. Nowhere 
in Asia did he now seem safe from capture by either Attalus 
or his brother. He crossed into Europe, to Thrace, which had 
been held since the Laodicean "War by Ptolemaic forces, and 
threw himself upon the generosity of the King of Egypt 
(228-227). On the orders of the Alexandrian court he was 
held under close guard. By the help, however, of some girl, 
whose heart had been won by the captive prince, he eluded 
nis keeper^-.. But the wild mountains of Thrace were no safe 

1 Another daughter of his was the mother of King Attalus, so that he mus 
have been now an old man. We are told at least by Strabo (xiii. 624) tha 
Antiochis, the mother of Attalus, was "the daughter of Achaeus," and it i 
generally assumed that the Achaeus in question is the father of Andromachu 
and Laodice, the wife of Seleucus II. It may, of course, have been an earlier 
Achaeus, the father of the father of Andi omachus. 

- Polyaen. iv. 17 ; Trog. Prol. xxvii. 

•' It is probably this affinity which was in Justin's mind when he described 
Ariamnes as "socerum suum." 

■* Just, xxvii. 3, 7 ; Trog. Prol. xxvii. 

5 Eus. i. p. 253 ; cf. Frankel, Inschr. von Perg. Nos. 26-28. 


place for fugitives. His little company encountered a marauding 
band of Gauls, and by the hand of the Gauls, with whom he 
had had all his life long so much to do, Antiochus Hierax 
came to his end. A story was told by the contemporary 
historian Phylarchus that the horse of Antiochus, when the 
Gallic chief Centaretus mounted it, leaped over a precipice 
and avenged its master.^ 

The disappearance of Antiochus Hierax from the scene 
extinguished the separate Seleucid court in Asia Minor. 
Attalus was left in possession of what had once been the 
Seleucid domain north of the Taurus. It remained for 
Seleucus Kallinikos to decide whether he would acquiesce in 
the severance of that country from his house or demand its 
restitution by force of arms from the Pergamene king. What 
he actually did we do not know with certainty. He was given 
but little time to do anything. A year after the death of his 
brother, Seleucus II perished by a fall from his horse (227-226).^ 
He had never come to his own again in the land where his 
reign had begun,^ 

§ 4. Seleucus III Soter 

The task of restoration, which devolved upon his successor, 
was a hard one. The geographical centre of the Empire, Syria, 
Babylonia, and the nearer Iranian provinces, were still held, but 
in the west and east great members had been broken away. 
The Ptolemaic power ruled the coasts of southern Asia Minor, 
even to some extent of Syria, possessing Seleucia and the 
mouth of the Orontes ; the Pergamene power ruled the Ionian 
and Aeolian coasts, and as much of the interior as was not in 
the hands of barbarian princes. For this task the youth who 
succeeded Seleucus Kallinikos was little fitted. He was the 
elder of the two sons of Seleucus II by Laodice, the daughter 

1 Eus. i. p. 253 ; Trog. Prol. xxvii. ; Just, xxvii. 3, 9 f. ; Ael. Hist. An. 
vi. 44 ; Solin. 45 ; Plin. N.R. viii. § 158. 

2 Eus. i. 251, 253 ; Just, xxvii. 3, 12. 

3 Atone period of his reign Seleucus II, as his coins show, wore a beard. 
This, of course, was not usual among the upper classes of the Greek world in that 
age, except in the case of philosophers and poets, or as a sign of mourning. The 
beard of Seleucus got him the popular nickname of Foyon, Polyb. ii. 71, 4. 


of Achaeus. He had hitherto been known as Alexander, but 
on ascending the throne assumed the dynastic name of 
Seleucus. Seleucus Soter was his official style. He was of 
weak bodily constitution, liable, if one may judge by the 
nickname of Keraunos, which the soldiers gave him, to fits of 
uncontrolled passion. He seems, however, to have addressed 
himself without delay to the work of recovering his kingdom 
in the west. His younger brother Antiochus was apparently 
sent to represent the royal authority in the eastern provinces. 

Of the two enemies in the west, the Pergamene king is 
the only one whom Seleucus III is said to have directly 
attacked. He seems to have prepared to strike a blow from 
the instant of his accession.^ The inscriptions of Attains 
record victories over the " generals of Seleucus." 

Presently the young King himself crossed the Taurus with 
a large army. From this time to the day of his death he was 
warring in Asia Minor. Was anything done meantime against 
the Egyptian power ? In the Book of Daniel (11, 10) loth the 
sons of Seleucus II are said to be " stirred up," i.e. against the 
King of Egypt, and to " assemble a multitude of great forces." 
If we had any ground for supposing an alliance between 
Pergamos and Egypt, the attack on Attains might be con- 
sidered an indirect attack on Ptolemy. But we have no 
ground. Mese supposes that hostilities between the Seleucid 
court and Egypt had again broken out before the death of 
Seleucus Kallinikos, and that they were closed by a definitive 
peace under Seleucus Soter.^ It is at any rate likely that 
preparations were made by Seleucus III for a renewal of the 
war with Egypt, especially as his chief minister, Hermlas the 

1 Polyb. iv. 48, 7. 

2 The grounds for the supposition of new hostilities are (1) that Seleucia-in- 
Pieria was in Seleucid possession at the time of Stratonice's insurrection, but was 
again in Ptolemaic handsat the accession of Antiochus III ; (2) that Andromachus, 
the brother of Seleucus II's queen, was commanding against Antiochus Hierax 
about 230, but had been captured by the Egyptians some time before 220. 
Neither of these grounds is certain evidence. The ground for supposing a 
definitive peace is the fact that Polybius (v. 67) calls the attempt of Antiochus 
III to conquer Ccsle-Syria irpo(pavis dolKrjfia, and speaks of the Egyptian envoys 
as eli Tra.pacr-w6v5rifj,a ttjv Qeoddrov Trpodocrlav Kal ttjv ^(podov avdyovres tt)v 'Aptloxov. 
It is to be noticed, however, that Polybius implies that in doing so they 
exaggerated, t6 wapov tjS^ov ddlKr]fj.a. 


Carian, was the main advocate of an aggressive policy against 
Egypt a few years later under Antiochus III. If Seleucns III 
made the war with Pergamos take precedence of the war with 
Egypt, it may have been that the attack on the Ptolemaic 
power was left by an understanding to the allied court of 
Macedonia. About the same time that Seleucus engaged 
Attalus in the interior of Asia Minor, Antigonus Doson, 
reigning as Eegent in Macedonia for the infant Philip, whom 
the death of Demetrius about 230-229 had made King, 
descended upon the coasts of Caria and expelled the Ptolemaic 

How the war between Seleucus III and Attalus went we 
do not know. Seleucus was at any rate unable to maintain 
order in his own camp. The result was a conspiracy against 
the King's life, of which the leading spirits were Nicanor, no 
doubt a Macedonian officer of the King's entourage, and 
Apaturius, a chieftain of the mercenary Gauls. Seleucus was 
in Phrygia in the summer of 223, when the design against 
him was brought to pass. His life was suddenly cut short, by 
poison according to one account.^ One disaster after another 
had come upon the house of Seleucus, and its extinction must 
have seemed at that moment a possibility of the near future. 

1 This war ia Caria is known only by two notices : 'AvTl-yovo^ . . . tov 
■jrpoKel/xeuov erAet TrXow eis ttjv 'Affiav, Polyb. xx. 5, 11. Quo {i.e. Demetrio) 
mortuo tutelam filii eius Philippi suscepit Antigonus, qui Thessaliam, Mcesiam, 
Cariam subegit, Trog. Prol. xxviii. [Beloch (Beitrclge zur alt. Gcsch. ii. 1902) 
puts the expedition before the death of Antiochus Hierax.] 

2 App. Sijr. 66; Polyb. iv. 48; Eus. i. 253; Jerome, in Daniel, 11, 10; 
Trog. Prol. xxviii. 

The confused period covered by this chapter has been specially treated by U. 
Kohler, Die Griind^mg dcs Kdiiigreichs Pcrgamon-Histor. Zeit. xlvii. (1882), p. 
1 f. ; Koepp, Rhein. Mus. xxxix. (1884), p. 209 f. ; Beloch, Histor. Zeit. Ix. 
(1888), p. 500 f. ; Bouche-Leclercq, Le regne de Seleucus II (an admirable 
summary and discussion of the various theories), reprinted from the Remie d. 
University d. Midi, iii. (1897), and by HaussouUier, loc. cit. 



The reigns of the first Seleucids have hitherto been traced in 
regard to Asia Minor ; they have appeared but as a long 
struggle for the possession of that country. But while it is in 
this light that the surviving records show them, while this 
perhaps they principally were, the successors of Seleucus 
wished also to preside over the life of that remoter world 
which the Greek had come to know beyond the Taurus, to be 
the sovereign power over the ancient Aramaean and Babylonian 
peoples, over the husbandmen and horsemen of Iran. But of 
the work they did there, of the cities they built, of the 
Hellenic communities they planted far and wide, of the way 
in which the native peoples looked upon this new element 
thrust into their midst and upon their alien overlords — of all 
that what memorial is left ? 

The Seleucid domain towards the east consisted, as we 
have seen, of three main divisions, the lands immediately to 
the south of the Taurus — that is Cilicia, Northern Syria, and 
Mesopotamia — the lands of the lower Euphrates and Tigris — 
that is, the Assyrio- Babylonian country — and lastly, Iran. 
We will take each of these separately and see what can be 
made out of Seleucid rule there up to the accession of 
Antiochus III. Eor all of them our evidence is two-fold, 
literary and archaeological, both sorts scanty enough. In the 
remains of historians only a notice here and there occurs 
relating to some part of these countries, as they were touched 
by the interminable wars ; from the geographers the names of 
cities can be gathered which bear witness to the Helleniziug 


SYKIA 207 

activity of the Seleucid kings, and sometimes show on what 
main pivots geographically the life of those days turned. The 
archaeological evidence may be multiplied in time by the 
traveller and excavator ; but at present practical difficulties 
have prevented the examination of most of this field, and we 
have no series of Seleucid inscriptions, as in Asia Minor. The 
coins, lastly, can tell us something, although the extreme 
uncertainty which hangs about their places of minting makes 
this line of evidence a seductive, rather than a safe, guide. 

The land which we call Syria is created by the line of 
mountain which goes from the Taurus on the north as far as 
the Gulf of 'Akaba in the Eed Sea. These mountains prevent 
the Arabian desert, traversed by the Euphrates and Tigris, 
from extending quite to the eastern shore of the Mediterranean. 
They interpose a belt of habitable country between the expanse 
of sea and the expanse of sand. From its position Syria has 
always been the bridge between Egypt and Asia. But it was 
not only traversed by a world-route going north and south, it 
was crossed east and west by the routes from Babylon and the 
Further East, which found on its coasts their nearest outlet to 
the Mediterranean, and in the Cilician Gates their natural 
door into Asia Minor. It belongs to the Mediterranean lands, 
and at the same time is of those lands the most closely connected 
ivith the great seats of Asiatic civilization. 

The line of mountain on which Syria is formed is a double 
one. From end to end a depression divides two parallel ranges. 
Sometimes the floor of the depression rises with the mountains 
to a considerable height above the sea, as in Al-Bika' (Cale- 
Syria in the narrow sense) between the Lebanon and Antili- 
banus ; Sometimes it sinks even below sea-level, as in the Jordan 
valley. The mountains themselves have different names in 
different parts of their line. Sometimes they are too high and 
rugged to be habitable near the summit ; in that case they 
come as a barrier between the people who inhabit the depres- 
sion and those of the outside slopes ; sometimes they are low 
enough to be habitable in all their breadth ; Judaea covers the 
high ground between the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea. 
The depression makes the bed of different rivers, the Orontes, 
Al-Litani, the Jordan; the two former burst through the 


western range to the Mediterranean ; the Jordan ceases before 
finding an exit. 

The name of Syria, however, extends somewhat farther 
than the two parallel ranges and the lands which thence draw 
their water. It covers those adjoining lands on the north 
which receive their water from the Taurus and its foot-hills, 
and which extend eastwards as far as the Euphrates, where it 
most nearly approaches the Mediterranean. They rise above 
the level of the desert, and of the plains in which the depres- 
sion just spoken of ends to northward. Between these plains 
and the Euphrates they intervene as a sort of plateau pushed 
out from the Taurus. The plains are the natural centre of 
Northern Syria, receiving the Orontes from the south as well 
as streams from the Taurus on the north, communicating 
through the gorge of the Lower Orontes with the coast and 
by an easy ascent with the plateau of inner Syria. The 
climate of the plateau is other than that of the plains and 
coast. It is a more arid and barer world. The soil yields 
under labour, but is apt to be stony. There are here longer 
winters and more parching summers. But it is crossed by the 
roads to the Euphrates, and it is in Aleppo that the life of 
modern Syria finds its centre. 

The administrative system according to which Northern 
Syria was divided under Seleucus and his first successors can- 
not be traced with any clearness. We know that the Seleucis 
consisted of the four satrapies of Antioch, Seleucia, Apamea 
and Laodicea,^ and outside of this there lay to the north 
Cyrrhestice and Commagene. To the south the frontier 
between Seleucid and Ptolemaic Syria was probably, on the 
coast, the river Eleutherus,^ and in the interior some point in 
the valley called Marsyas or Massyas.^ 

In this country the invasive Greek element soon made 
itself thoroughly at home. Syria became a " new Macedonia." 
Its districts and rivers were renamed after those of the mother- 
land. The mountain region north of the mouth of the Orontes, 
perhaps from some resemblance to the mountains north of 
Tempe, became Pieria, the Orontes itself Axius, and so on. 
Local attachments had to be found for the old Greek legends. 
1 Strabo xvi. 749 f. ^ jj^^_ 753 a poiyij_ ^ 45^ g . strabo xvi. 753. 

SYRIA 209 

At Daphne, four miles from Antioch, the place was shown 
where the nymph Daphne, pursued by Apollo, was changed 
into a bay-tree. It was in this region that Typhon was blasted 
by Zeus ; the river-bed, in fact, had been formed by his 
writhings. The wandering heroes of Greek mythology were 
especially useful in making these connexions. On the 
Amanus mountains Orestes had been delivered from his 
madness, as the name proved — Amanus, " a- mania." lo 
naturally had left traces of herself, and Triptolemus, as we 
shall presently see. 

The establishment of Hellenic communities in barbarian 
Asia was not, of course, the outcome of spontaneous immigra- 
tion only ; we see in it rather the fixed policy of the kings. 
A Greek population could not exist except as grouped in Greek 
cities, and these cities the kings were zealous to build. Their 
citizens, no doubt, were to a considerable extent Greeks driven 
from their old homes by political or economic causes, or drawn 
by hopes of advantage, but they consisted also of soldiers, 
Greek and Macedonian, settled by royal order, and also, one 
must believe, of natives and half-breeds, who had put on the 
externals of Hellenism. The lower classes were perhaps 
frankly barbarian ; but whatever the real parentage of the 
citizen-body, it was in theory and guise Macedonian or Greek. 
It was in the Orontes valley that the life of Seleucid Syria 
pulsed most strongly. Of the four great cities established by 
Seleucus Nicator, three were here, Seleucia, Antioch, and 

Seleucia-in-Pieria guarded the mouth of the river. The 
coast of Northern Syria, ramparted by hills which jut out to 
sea in rocky promontories, offers little friendliness to ships. 
But where the Orontes breaks through this wall, a bay, some 
ten miles across, reaches from Mount Coryphaeus (mod. Jabal 
Musa) on the north to the great landmark of the coast, the 
towering Mount Casius (mod. Al-Akra') on the south. 
Along the inner recess of the bay lies a crescent-shaped plain, 
presenting to the sea a fringe of sand-dunes and salt pools, but 
a little inland covered with corn-fields, with figs and pome- 
granates, and enfolded by the rich background of wooded hills. 
At the southern extremity of this plain, close under Mount 



Casius, the Orontes flows into the sea; at the northern 
extremity, about five miles off, was built the city of Seleucia, 
above what was in those days the principal harbour of the 
coast. The mountain here rises from the sea in a series of 
ledges or terraces. From the quay ^ one ascended to a level 
which stood some 20 or 30 feet above the waves, beyond 
which a much higher shelf rose in rocky walls of 400 or 500 
feet. It was on this shelf that the upper city of Seleucia lay. 
Behind it were the wild contours of the Pierian range. At its 
feet along the level was the lower city, containing the harbour, 
the warehouses, and the " outer town " (Trpodaretov). Set 
upon precipices, Seleucia was remarkable for its strength.^ 
Mighty walls, the work of kings, supplemented the cliffs. 
Climbing streets and rocky stairways connected its upper and 
lower parts. Its temples and buildings were displayed in their 
full magnificence by the rising ground. It was worthy to be 
the gateway of a great kingdom.^ 

The legend of the founding of Seleucia by Seleucus 
Nicator after sacrifice on Mount Casius is given by a late 
writer.* That it was really the first Seleucus who founded it 
is open to no doubt. Bearing his name, the city worshipped 
him as its god. It was granted the possession of his body by 
Antiochus I, and a temple was built over his sepulchre, with a 
sacred precinct attached, the Mcatoreum.^ 

It was not necessary for those voyaging to Antioch to 
disembark at Seleucia. Till as late as the Crusades the 
Orontes was navigable as far as Antioch itself. From the 
mouth of the river the traveller would ascend, having on his 
left the plain of Seleucia and on his right the base of Mount 
Casius. This region was once full of human life. Casius 
was vested in immemorial sanctity as the holy mountain of 
some Semitic Baal whom the Greeks, of course, called Zeus. 
Its summit was too sacred to be mounted.^ The festivals of 
the god periodically called forth gay throngs of worshippers 
from the capital. To-day it is a wilderness, given up to the 
jackal, though the remains of ancient works and once well- 

1 Polyb. V. 59, 9. ^ ^pvfivoTaTT], Strabo xvi. 749. 

» Strabo xvi. 749 ; Polyb. v. 59 ■• Malalas, p. 198 (Bonn). 

5 App. Syr. 63. '' Ael. Spart. Hadr. 14. 

SYKIA 211 

trodden roads can still be found among its growth of oleanders. 
Presently, as the traveller continued to ascend the river, the 
mountains would close in on the left as well ; he would be in 
the gorge, some six miles long, by which the Orontes cuts 
through the coast range to the sea, a place of extraordinary 
and romantic beauty, not unlike the Thessalian Tempe. From 
the gorge he emerges upon the plains of inner Syria, The 
spur of Casius, however, on his right, continues to keep close 
to the bank, splendidly covered with timber and flowering 
shrubs, and sending down a thousand torrents into the river. 
The chain ends in Mount Silpius, round which the Orontes 
makes its westward bend, coming from the south. Beyond 
Mount Silpius to the east is open country, the plain of 
Amyce (pcii'),^ with th6 great levels of the lake of Antioch 
beginning some ten miles farther on. 

Under the northern slopes of Silpius rose the new 
Seleucid city. The beauty for which Antioch was notable 
was derived in part from its setting, the near background of 
wild mountain contrasting delightfully with the rich culture 
of its well-watered plain. Its position was favourable to 
growth in greatness and riches. The climate, except in the 
matter of some malignant winds from the north, was excellent ; 
the soil was very fertile ; and, in addition to these advantages, 
it was admirably placed with regard to the commerce of the 
world. The Orontes valley here opens out into the plains 
which, as has been said, are the natural centre of Northern 
Syria. Along this way went the regular land -routes from 
Babylonia and Iran to the Mediterranean. It suffered indeed 
from certain inconveniences. The most serious was the 
frequency of earthquakes in Northern Syria, Besides this the 
numerous torrents from Silpius, which added to the city's 
charm and made it singularly fortunate in its supply of good 
water, had the drawback of being sometimes swollen and 
intractable, when they spread devastation on the slopes. 

Before Seleucus, Antigonus liad chosen this region as the 
site of one of his principal cities. But the two designs did 
not exactly correspond. Seleucus found the infant city of 
Antigonia north of the Orontes on a stream (Arceuthus, mod. 

1 Polyb. V. 59, 10. 


Kara-su) which carried to the Orontes the overflow of the 
Lake of Antioch.^ He marked out Antioch along the southern 
bank of the Orontes on the level strip, two miles broad, 
between river and mountain. He avoided building on the 
slope for fear of the torrents. The city was designed by the 
architect Xenarius,^ according to the practice of the time, on a 
regular plan with straight-ruled thoroughfares. It formed an 
extended oblong, the main street running through it parallel 
with the river, and making a long vista from end to end. 

The legend of the foundation of Antioch, as given by 
Malalas, represents what the Antiochenes liked to be believed 
as to the origin of their city. In naming the different 
constituents of which the first population was formed it 
perhaps reflects some historical facts. According to this 
legend Antioch had a claim to be held one of the first-born 
Greek colonies, no parvenue of Macedonian creation. It 
claimed affinity with Athens and Argos ; lo, the daughter of 
Inachus, had died there, and the party of Argives, led by the 
Attic Triptolemus, who had gone in quest of her, had settled 
on Mount Silpius, and their descendants had made the 
nucleus of Antioch. They appealed to the name which the 
native Aramaeans gave the great city, lone, as the Greeks 
pronounced it ; ^ it meant, of course, in reality no more than 
" city of the Greeks ( Javan)." That there was an Athenian 
element in the population first settled by Antigonus at 
Antigonia and transferred by Seleucus to Antioch is quite 
possible ; * both the coins and the monuments of Antioch put 
forward the connexion with Athens. It is allowed by Malalas 
that a good part of the original colonists were Macedonians. 
Cretans and Cypriots are also mentioned. 

During the reigns of the first successors of Seleucus 
Antioch grew. To the original city of Seleucus a second city 
was added with its own separate wall — a foundation, according 
to Strabo, " of the resident population," whatever that may 
mean.^ A third quarter was founded on an island in the Orontes 

^ The lake of Antioch is not mentioned before Malalas, but the argument 
rom silence cannot be pressed against its existence in earlier times. 

2 Malalas, p. 200. ^ Strabo xvi. 750 ; Libauius, Anlioch. p. 289. 

■■ Malalas, p. 201. 

■'' ToO ifK-qdovs tQiv oiKTjrdpuv iffTL KTifffxa, Strabo xvi. 750. 

SYRIA 213 

opposite the existing double city, when Seleucus II, driven 
from Asia Minor, made Antioch his residence. It was perhaps 
in this island quarter that the palace of the later Seleucids 
lay. A bridge, of course, connected it with the mainland, and 
Antioch was thus become a tripolis. Seleucus II probably 
only began to build, since the island city is represented by 
Libanius ^ as the work of his son, Antiochus III. 

It would seem that at the foundation of the new cities of 
that age a cult was instituted of the Fortune of the city, that 
is, the spiritual personality of the city, and an image of it was 
set up. According to stories told in later times a virgin was 
actually sacrificed, and thereby identified in some way with 
this soul of the city ; but the stories possibly have no basis 
but the image itself. The image of Antigouia, when Seleucus 
destroyed the foundation of his rival, was transferred to 
Antioch and worshipped in the new city till it was again 
removed to Rhossus on the coast.^ But Antioch had a Fortune 
of its own. The sculptor, Euty chides of Sicyon, a pupil of the 
great Lysippus, was commissioned to make its image.^ Of all 
the great works of art with which Antioch the Beautiful was 
adorned this is the only one which retains a visible form for 
us to-day. A copy of it in marble exists in the Vatican, just 
as it is shown on many of the coins of Antioch.* The 
personified Antioch sits with a certain noble freedom, holding 
an ear of corn in her hand, her head crowned with flowers, and 
a small figure, representing the river Orontes, rising out of the 
ground at her feet. The original must have had all that 
dramatic effectiveness which stamps the products of Greek 
sculpture in the third century b.c.^ 

A chief glory of Antioch was the paradise of Daphne, 
which lay between river and mountain some four or five miles 
below the city. The place to-day is notable for its rich greenery 

1 Antioch. p. 309. 

- By Demetrius the son of Antigonus Poliorcetes after the death of Seleucus, 
says Malalas ; what sense is to be extracted from this confusion is problematical. 

^ Paus. vi. 2, 4. 

* See the reverse of the coin of Tigranes on Plate IV. 

5 For Antioch the standard work is Karl Ottfried IMiiller's Antiquitates 
Antiochenae (1839), but an important addition to the literature on the subject is 
made by R. Forster's article in the Jahrbuch d. kaiserl. deutsch. archaolog. 
histituts, xii. p. 103 (1897). 


and rushing streams — the " House of the Waters " (Bait-al-Ma). 
In ancient times these streams ran through the gloom of giant 
cypresses which encompassed the temple of the Pythian Apollo. 
Under their shadow, or among the bay-trees and oleanders, the 
population of Antioch spent their hours of pleasure. A course 
for games, of which the god was patron — an imitation of the 
Pythia of Greece — was made near the temple, and Daphne was 
continually filled with the noise of festivals and the glitter of 
gay processions. The image of Apollo, put up by Seleucus I, 
was the work of the Athenian Bryaxis. It represented Apollo 
in his form as Musagetes with the lyre and the long garment 
down to the foot. Other lesser temples rose among the trees. 
The place was a sanctuary, and as such, one would think, did 
not tend to diminish the criminality of the great city close by.. 
Its whole circuit was eighty stadia} 

The high-priesthood of Apollo at Daphne was a position of 
ease and dignity. It seems not to have been annual but 
permanent, since we find Antiochus III conferring it upon a 
distinguished servant who, after the long campaigns in Asia 
Minor, was too broken for further fatigues.^ 

The third great city of Seleucus, Apamea, dominated the 
middle Orontes. The course of the river between the neigh- 
bourhood of Apamea and the point where it issues from the 
mountains to make its westward bend round Silpius is very 
ill known. About Apamea the valley widens out into a 
swampy basin. Continual streams fall into it from the hills 
on the east and produce a rank vegetation. Alongside of the 
river stretch reedy lagoons. It is a district which seems 
hardly to belong to dry Syria. Apamea stood on the lower 
slopes of the eastern hills. South of it comes one of those 
depressions in the range which opened out easy communications 
between the Orontes valley and the east. Seleucus seems to 
have found here an earlier settlement of Macedonian soldiers, 
who called their city Pella after the Macedonian capital.^ 

^ Strabo xvi. 750, and the references in Miiller, Antiq. Antioch. p. 46 ; see 
also Ritter, Erdkunde, viii. 2te Abtheil. 3ter Abschnitt. 

2 Philologus xvii. (1861), p. 345. An interesting and little known inscription. 

* Strabo xvi. 752. Malalas (p. 203) says oddly that Seleucus called Apamea 
Pella because the Tyche of Apamea bore this name, and adds as a further 
explanation that Seleucus himself was a native of Pella. If there was an earlier 

SYRIA 215 

Whether the altar of the Bottiaean Zeus, at which the city- 
worshipped, was really put up by Alexander himself, as the 
tradition asserted, may be questioned. Apamea became the 
military headquarters of Syria, if not of the Empire. Here 
was the central office for the army {ro XoyoarripLov to crrpaTio)- 
TLKov) and the military schools. Here were the government 
studs, which embraced at one time more than 30,000 mares 
and 300 blood stallions. Here Seleucus placed the 500 
elephants which he got from the Panjab, 

The neighbourhood of Apamea seems to have been dotted 
with settlements of soldiers, which formed petty townships 
dependent upon the great city. Strabo gives the names of 
Casiani, Megara, Apollonia, and Larissa. The sites of none of 
these are known except that of Larissa. This was the modern 
Shaizar, set upon a rock of reddish-yellow limestone, which 
stands up precipitously above the Orontes on its western bank. 
Just south of this the river issues out of a narrow gorge that 
has been compared to the Wye at Chepstow, and Larissa is 
thus a position which must have been always strategically 
important as guarding the entrance into the Apamea basin. 
The settlers in Larissa were Thessalians, and it was after the 
Thessalian Larissa that the township on the Orontes was 
called. They furnished horsemen to the first agema of the 
royal cavalry, and their descendants seem to have kept up for 
more than a hundred years at least after the death of Seleucus 
the tradition of horsemanship and prowess.^ 

The remaining one of the four great cities was not in the 
Orontes valley, but at one of the few safe harbourages along 
the rockv coast — Laodicea, called after Laodice, the mother of 
Seleucus. It stood on the coast about in a line with Apamea 
in the Orontes valley, and communicated both with it and 
Antioch by roads across the mountain. These roads, however, 
are said to be difficult in winter, and Laodicea did not possess 
the advantages of Seleucia and Antioch in standing on a great 
commercial route between the Mediterranean and the East. 

Macedonian settlement called Pella, with a worship of its patron-goddess as 
the Tyche of Pella, Seleucus may have authorized the old name to be still used 
for ritual purposes from superstitious reasons. 
* Diod. xxxiii. 4 a. 


It offered, however, a good harbour, nearer than Seleucia, to 
ships coming from the south or from Cyprus, and it had its 
own produce to export. This consisted mainly in wine. The 
hills behind the city were terraced almost to the top with 
vineyards, and Laodicean wine found a large market in Egypt.^ 

These four cities show us the chief centres of life in the 
Seleucis. But they were only the first of a growing number 
of communities, Greek in speech and structure, which over- 
spread the country during the rule of Macedonian kings and 
Eoman emperors. The hills and valleys are full of the remains 
of this departed life. But the very names of the towns have 
mostly perished. A few gathered from ancient authors cannot 
in most cases be certainly fixed to particular sites. On the 
coast in the Bay of Issus was a foundation of Alexander's, 
Alexandria, the modern Alexandretta. Its relative importance, 
of course, was not so great as it is to-day, when it is the 
main port of Northern Syria. We hear of a Heraclea and 
an Antioch in Pieria,^ of Meleagrii-charax in the plain of 
Antioch,^ of Platanus on the road through the hills from the 
great Antioch to Laodicea,* of Lysias ^ and Seleucobelus,'' which 
seem to have been among the dependent townships of Apamea. 
The ancient Arethusa, a colony of Seleucus I according to 
Appian,'^ is represented by Ar-rastan. In the region of the 
Upper Orontes and the Lake of Kadesh, round which are the 
remains of a once numerous population, some of them classical, 
we have Laodicea-on-Lebanon.^ South of it the Lebanon and 
Antilibanus close in and make the narrow valley, called by 
the ancients Marsyas. In this there was a Chalcis,^ and near 
the sources of the Orontes, Heliopolis (mod. Baalbek). 

The great desert east of the Orontes valley made a blank 
for civilization. Only in the neighbourhood of the hills which 
divide the desert from the valley is a strip of country, treeless 

1 Strabo xvi. 752. - Steph. Byz. s.v. ^ Strabo xvi. 751. 

* Itiner. Anton. ' Strabo xvi. 760. 

* Steph. Byz. s.v. ; Hierocl. p. 712 ; ZeXei^/ceto wpbs B^\(fj, Ptolem. ; Seleucia 
ad Belum, Plin. v. § 82 ; likevKb^oKos, Theoph. Chron. p. 533 (Bonn). Perhaps 
the same as SAev/cos 7r6X(s irepl tq iv ZvpLq. 'Aira/xdif, Steph. Byz. 

' Syr. 57. 

* Aao8lKeia 7) irpbi Ai^dvip, Strabo xvi. 755 ; Itiner. Anton.; Polyb. v. 45, 7. 
^ Strabo xvi. 755 ; Joseph. Arch. xiv. § 40, etc. 

SYRIA 217 

and bare-looking, but covered in the spring with grass and 
flowers, and repaying the toil of irrigation. Along this also 
are abundant remains of the people who dwelt here in the 
days of Greek and Roman ascendancy — their sepulchres, their 
buried cities, and dry cisterns. Towards the north the desert 
ceases as the land begins to rise. We reach the plateau of 
inner Syria. Here the traces of a great population are thicker 
than ever. In Al-Jabal al-A'la, the most northerly of the 
hills which bound the Orontes valley to the east, merging on 
the side away from the valley by gradual declivities with the 
plateau, there are "twenty times more Greek and Roman 
antiquities than in all Palestine." The road from Antioch 
to the modern Dana, to the north-east of Al-A'la, is one 
series of ruins on both sides of the way. It is here that a 
traveller asserts he was never out of sight of architectural 
remains, of which he could sometimes see from ten to twelve 
heaps from a single point of view.^ 

The plateau is divided by the river Chains (mod. Kuwaik), 
which flows from the hills of Cyrrhestice ^ and loses itself in 
a salt swamp on the confines of the desert. From the hills 
which divide the plateau from the plain of Antioch as far 
as the Chains valley, the undulating country is capable of 
cultivation, and was once populous. It is now neglected and 
to a large extent waste. The valley of the Chains is much 
more fertile. Where it opens out into a rich plain, stood, no 
doubt, long before Seleucus, the Syrian city of Chalep. This 
became a new Greek city with the name of Beroea. The route 
from Antioch to Hieropolis passed through it, and it must have 
drawn its resources from the road as well as from its fields. 
Aleppo, as we call it, is to-day the most important centre in 
Northern Syria. Near Bercea, and apparently to the north of 
it, Strabo mentions a Heraclea whose site has not been 
identified. Beside the route from Antioch to the Euphrates, 
which crossed the Chains valley at Beroea, there was one more 
to the south, reaching the Euphrates at Barbelissus (mod. 
B^lis). This route crossed the Chains only one mile above 

^ Walpole, The Ansayrii, iii. p. 246. 

* In Strabo (xvi. 751) Cyrrhestice does not seem to include the plateau of 


the salt marsh in which it ends, and here on a lower terrace 
of the hills which overlook it was the city of Chalcis. The 
modern Kinnasrin, the frontier town towards the desert, which 
corresponds in position to Chalcis, holds a very inferior place 
with respect to Aleppo. Under the Seleucids the relative 
importance of the two cities was perhaps reversed. We know 
almost nothing of the life of inner Syria in those days, but we 
may conclude something from the fact that the region of the 
lower Chains was called, not after Beroea, but Chalcidice. 

Between the Chains and the Euphrates the country is 
to-day almost unoccupied, one " level sheep-tract." We hear 
of a Seleucid colony, Maronea or Maronias, which seems to 
have been on the road from Chalcis to Barbelissus.^ But the 
great place of this region was the ancient Syrian town Mabog,. 
about twelve miles from the Euphrates. It stands in the 
centre of a rocky plain, some 600 feet above the river, without 
running water or any advantage likely to create a place of 
importance. Its greatness had a rehgious ground. Men had 
congregated here about a famous temple of the Mother-goddess, 
whom under different names the Semites adored, here as 
Atargatis. Under Greek rule its name was temporarily 
Hieropolis, Seleucus himself according to one statement having 
made the innovation.^ It strikes coins under Antiochus IV, 
and had therefore been certainly Hellenized before that time. 
Its old name in the Greek form of Bambyce was still in use, 
and survives as Mambij to this day. 

The plateau of Beroea stood to the east of the plain of 
Antioch ; to the north of the plain rose the lower spurs of 
the Taurus. The upland tracts among them were not an 
unfavourable field for Hellenic colonization. Although the 
soil was generally light and stony, the spring crops were 
productive, and the climate was healthier than in the plain. 
At the beginning of the reign of Antiochus III the troops 
drawn from this region, consisting no doubt of Macedonian 
and Greek settlers, numbered 6000 men, and formed an element 
of account in the royal army.^ The whole political situation 
in Syria might be affected by the disposition of these colonies.^ 

1 Ptolem. V. 15, 18 ; App. Syr. 57. ^ ^^i £^^^ ^^ xii. 2. 

3 Polyb. V. 50, 7 f. * Ibid. v. 57, 4. 

SYEIA 219 

These things would point to a liberal plantation of Hellenic 
communities in the region in question. We cannot, however, 
get from our authorities the names of the new foundations, 
except one or two. Cyrrhus, the city after which the whole 
region was called Cyrrhestice, borrowed its name from Cyrrhus 
in Macedonia.^ Later on, another city, Gindarus, in a valley 
opening out into the plain of Antioch, seems to have taken 
the first place. Strabo calls it the " acropolis of Cyrrhestice." ^ 
In the disordered times of the later Seleucids it probably became 
what Strabo describes it, a robber-hold. One Greek city of 
these hills goes back perhaps to Alexander himself, Nicopolis. 
It stood on the eastern slopes of the Amanus, in the valley of 
the river now called Kara-su, on the place where Darius had 
pitched before he crossed the Amanus to meet Alexander at 
Issus.^ North of Cyrrhestice the hill country of Commagene 
lay above the Euphrates. Here Hellenism was probably later 
in establishing itself. How soon Samosata, the capital, became 
a Greek city we do not know. The Antioch eVl tc3 Tavpa 
mentioned in Commagene may have been founded by one of 
the later Seleucids, or even by the semi-Iranian dynasty which 
reigned here in the last century B.C. and used Antiochus as a 
royal name to show its affinity with the house of Seleucus. 
Whether Doliche and Chaonia were Greek cities is a question. 

There is a line of Greek foundations along the Euphrates 
at the places of passage, and in coming to those on the eastern 
bank we enter upon the province of Mesopotamia. By this 
name the Greeks understood the country between the Euphrates 
and Tigris above Babylonia. Only that part of Mesopotamia 
which lay far enough north to receive water from the Taurus 
was habitable land, and this region was divided from Babylonia 
by the great desert. Erom Syria on the other hand it was 
separated only by the Euphrates, and thus by geographical 
position, as well as by the homogeneity of their population, 
Syria and Mesopotamia formed almost one country. 

The most northerly place of passage on the Euphrates was 

^ Its site is that of the village of Kurus, 40 miles N. by "W. from Aleppo on 
the slopes of the Taurus. ^ xvi. 751. 

^ Droysen ii. p. 663, note 10. It is curious that its coins describe it as 
SeXev/cfSos. "Seleucis" must be used in a sense which includes Cyrrhestice. 


at Samosata in Commagene, and here on the Mesopotamian bank 
opposite Samosata stood a Seleucia.^ A much more important 
passage was that where a bridge of boats crossed the river on 
the direct route between Antioch and Edessa. Either head of 
the bridge was held by a Greek town, a foundation of the first 
Seleucus. On the Syrian bank was Zeugma, called after the 
bridge, on the Mesopotamian Apamea (mod. Birejik), with a 
rocky fortress of exceptional strength. Where the road from 
Syria to the East by way of Hieropolis struck the Euphrates 
was a Europus, called after the native city of Seleucus I,^ and 
near it a Nicatoris.^ The ancient route between Syria and 
Babylon crossed the Euphrates at Thapsacus,* and some twelve 
miles lower down, on the opposite bank, was Nicephorium, 
founded, according to Isidore and Pliny, by Alexander, and ac-. 
cording to Appian by Seleucus I.^ Whether the Kallinikon, said 
by the Ghronicon Paschale (Olymp. 134) to have been founded 
by Seleucus II Kallinikos, was identical with Nicephorium is 
a matter of dispute.^ There seem to have been other Greek 
cities in this neighbourhood. The immense importance of the 
ford at Thapsacus, as one of the cardinal points in the traffic 
of the world, no doubt made the Greek rulers wish to secure 
it strongly. Amphipolis, described as a foundation of Seleucus 
1,'^ is identified by Pliny with Thapsacus.^ It was perhaps 
adjacent to the old native town. A city called Aenus is also 
mentioned as opposite or close by.^ Near Nicephorium, a 
Zenodotium is mentioned.^" On the Euphrates below Thapsacus 
we can point to no more Greek cities till we reach Babylonia 
except one, Europus, about half-way between Nicephorium and 
Babylonia. It was the native town of Dura Hellenized, and 
the old name continued in use with the people of the land." 

^ Droysen (ii. p. 728) suspects that Strabo (xvi. 749) is confusing the Zeugma 
at Sannosata with the Zeugma lower down, but it appears to me without adequate 

- Pliti. V. § 86 ; Procop. De aedijic. ii. 9 ; Lucian, Qiiom. hist, conscrib. 24, 28. 

^ Steph. Byz. ^ The Ten Thousand ; Alexander. 

•■■' Isidore 1 ; Pliuy vi. § 119 ; App. Syr. 57. 

^ Droysen (ii. p. 742) thinks it was not, and suggests that Kallinikon may 
have been at a place called Harugla (i.e. Heraclea) and Nicephorium at Ar-Rakka, 
a little lower down. Kallinikon and Nicephorium are identified on Kiepert's map. 

7 Steph. Byz. ; App. Syr. 57. » Plin. v. § 86. " Kara Qi^paKov. Steph. Byz. 
i*" Steph. Byz. ; Plutarch, Crass. 17 ; Dio Cass. xl. 13. " Isidore 1. 

SYRIA 221 

We come now to the Greek cities of the interior of 
Mesopotamia. Their appearance gave the country a new 
character. Under the old Oriental empires the immemorial 
village life had predominated, although there had been towns 
like Haran and Nisibis. Now new centres of life sprang up 
everywhere in the Greek cities.^ It was along the river 
valleys, as we saw in Syria, that these cities were for the most 
part built. In Mesopotamia, the most westerly of the streams 
sent down from the Taurus and its foot-hills combine in the 
Belichas (mod. Al-Balikh) before they fall into the Euphrates 
by Nicephorium. Moving up the Belichas from the Euphrates, 
we come, at a point where another stream comes into the 
Belichas from the west, to Ichnae, called after a city of 
Macedonia, and described as " a Hellenic city, a foundation 
of the Macedonians." - At the time of the campaign of 
Crassus it was apparently little more than a fortress (retp^o?).^ 
In the valley of the western tributary we have Batnae, a 
gathering -place of merchants, since here the great eastern 
road from Hieropolis crossed the valley, described as a 
Macedonian colony,^ and near the source of the tributary 
Anthemusias, the first station on the road from Apamea to 
Babylon.^ In the valley of the Belichas itself, understood to 
include that of the Scirtus (mod. Daisan), we have the two 
important cities of western Mesopotamia. They were both 
old native towns transformed. The more northern, Urhai, or 
as the Greeks wrote it, Orrhoc, was given the new Macedonian 
name of Edessa. The native element was allowed to retain 
its place here to a larger degree than was usual in the new 
cities. According to Malalas, Seleucus first made it an 
Antioch with the distinguishing appellation of fjii,^o^dp/3apo^. 
In later times it was one of the chief seats of Syriac letters, 

^ "Mesopotamia tota Assyriorum fuit, vicatim dispersa praeter Babylona et 
Ninum. Macedones earn in urbes congrcgavere propter ubertatem soli." Pliny 
vi. § 117. 

2 Isidore 1. 3 djo Cass. xl. 12. 

* Municipium . . . conditum Macedonura manu priscorum. Amni. Marc, 
xiv. 3, 3. 

'^ Isidore 1 ; Tac. Ann. vi. 41. In Strabo and Ptolemy, Anthemusias is the 
name, not of a city, but of the district. Wheu Strabo says of the Aborras 
that it is wepl rrjp 'AvOefjiovffiav (xvi. 748) lie ])robab]y is speaking carelessly, 
meaning only that it is a river of N.W. Mesopotamia. 


proud of its pure dialect. In the modern Urfa the old name 
survives. The other city on the Belichas was Haran, associated 
in our minds with the story of Abraham. Its transformation 
to the Macedonian colony of Carrhae seems to be rightly 
attributed to Alexander himself. Seleucus, as we saw/ found 
a body of Macedonian soldiers settled here in 312. It 
became one day tragically famous by the disaster of Crassus. 

In the valley of the Chaboras (Al-Khabur), and along those 
many streams which go to form it, we cannot show Greek 
cities as we can to the west. That they existed is highly 
probable, but if so, their names have perished. There is one 
exception, Msibis. It became an Antioch.^ Part of the new 
population is said to have consisted of Spartans.^ An inscrip- 
tion speaks of it as the " holy city, which Mcator built, upon- 
the stream of Mygdou, in a land of olives." ^ It was a great 
junction of roads. The highway of communication between 
Syria and lands beyond the Tigris ran through it.^ In this 
case also the old name prevailed in the long run over the 
new. The district, in which Nisibis-Antioch was, got from 
the Macedonians the name of Mygdonia after their home. 
Antioch-in-Mygdonia was the city's ofl&cial name. We may 
perhaps infer that the district was more completely appro- 
priated by the new civilization than we could guess from the 
one city, whose existence is established.^ 

We have followed what can still be traced of the network 
of Greco-Eoman cities cast by the new rulers of the East over 
the country of the Aramaeans (Syria and Mesopotamia). We 
should like to know more than we do of the inner life of these 
communities. The political forms of the Greek city-state 
were, of course, maintained. We should have found in each 

1 P. 53. 

2 Joseph. Arch. xx. § 68 ; Plutarch, Lucull. 25 ; Strabo xvi. 747 ; Theophylact. 
iii. pp. 123, 134. ^ Plutarch, Ser. num. vind. 21. 

* C.I.G. No. 6856. ^ pojyb v. 51, 1. 

^ Some of the places mentioned by Pliny (vi. § 118), Dios-pege, Polytelia, 
Stratonicea, and (if not identical with Antioch-Nisibis) Antioch Arabis, may 
belong to this region. Of the names given by Appian {Syr. 57) as of cities 
foundeil in Syria and " tiie liarbariaiis further inland " (including perhaps Western 
Iran, but not Partliia) the following are otherwise unknown — Perinthus, Callipolis, 
Acliaia (unless this is Hcraclea in Media), Astacus, Tegea, and Heraea. 

SYEIA 223 

the periodically elected magistrates/ a houle and a demos 
passing decrees after the usual pattern and inscribing them 
on tables of brass and stone.^ The social organization of the 
citizens also probably followed the Greek type. At Antioch 
the people was divided into tribes,^ and we may infer the 
same thing in the other cities. The gymnasium, with the 
body of ephehoi attached to it, was an essential feature.* 
But to what extent the old Hellenic spirit survived in 
these forms, to what extent the new settlers preserved their 
type in the new environment, escapes our discovery. According 
to a speech which Livy puts into the mouth of Manlius (189 
B.C.) there had been rapid degeneracy. " Just as in the case 
of plants and live-stock, breed alone will not maintain the 
quality against the influences of soil and climate, so the 
Macedonians of Alexandria in Egypt, of Seleucia and 
Babylonia, and all the other scattered colonies throughout the 
world, have degenerated into Syrians, into Parthians, into 
Egyptians." ^ Titus Flamininus said of the armies of Antiochus 
III that they were " all Syrians." '° Whether this testimony 
is biassed, or again whether there was the same degeneration in 
the smaller cities as in great cosmopolitan centres like Antioch, 
we have not the means of making out. The Syrian Greeks 
were regarded as inferior by the Greeks of the motherland.'^ 

^ I do not know that we can exactly prove this, but it may be taken for 
granted, since the system belongs to the essence of the city-state. We hear of 
TO, t^Xt) at Seleucia in Pieria (Gurob papyrus, Sitzungsh. der AJcad. z. Berlin, 
1894, p. 44.5 f.), of the (rvvapxia-i- at Antioch [ib.), at Damascus of the eyx^pi-oi 
dpxai, Suidas s. Antipater of Damascus. The title borne by the chief magis- 
trates was that of strategoi in the case of Antioch (Michel, No. 550), but the 
decree in which it occurs is of the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. 

- The houle is mentioned at Antioch (Michel, No. 550), and at Gaza (consist- 
ing of 500), which, of course, was not under the Seleucids till the time of 
Antiochus III (Joseph. Arch. xiii. § 364). 

^ Miiller, Antiq. Antioch. p. 30. 

* At Antioch, ol airb rod yv/xvaalov veavlaKoi (Kohler, Sitzb. Berl. 1894, p. 
445 f.), who are no doubt identical with the iip-q^oi. (Polyb. xxxi. 3, 12). The 
party at Jerusalem, who wish to transform tlie city into a Hellenic Antioch, 
regard the gymnasium as almost the principal thing (1 Mace. 1, 14 ; iav 
iTTixopvyV^V S'" ■'■'7S e^ova-ias avTov yvfivdawv Kal i(p7}^iav avrip avffrria-affdai, Kal 
Tovs iv 'Iepo(To\v/j.oi.s 'ApTioxeh dvaypaxj/at, 2 Mace. 4, 9). 

6 Liv. xxxviii. 17, 10. 6 /jj^_ j^^^^y 49^ 8 ; Plutarch, Titus, 17. 

^ irapayepofievos els ttji/ Si'pi'ai' /cat KaTa<ppot'ri(ras rQv dvdpuirwv, Polyb. 
xxxii. 6, 6. 


It must be admitted that we do not get a favourable picture 
of them from their fellow-countryman, Posidonius of Apamea 
{circ. 135-51 B.C.) ; and even if his description be true 
only of the later days of the Seleucid dynasty, the decline 
must have begun long before. " The people of these cities 
are relieved by the fertility of their soil from a laborious 
struggle for existence. Life is a continuous series of social 
festivities. Their gymnasiums they use as baths, where they 
anoint themselves with costly oils and myiThs. In the 
grammateia (such is the name they give the public eating- 
halls) they practically live, filling themselves there for the 
better part of the day with rich foods and wine; much that 
they cannot eat they carry away home. They feast to the 
prevailing music of strings. The cities are filled from end to 
end with the noise of harp-playing." ^ Consonant with this 
picture is the account Posidonius gives of the war between 
Apamea and Larissa — some petty war of two neighbour cities 
w^hich is not otherwise known." He narrates the setting out 
of the Apamean force. " They had caught up poignards and 
javelins which were indistinguishable in rust and dirt. They 
wore hats with broad brims, exquisitely adjusted so as to 
shade the neck without keeping off the cool breeze. Behind 
them trailed a string of asses, laden with wine and all sorts of 
viands, alongside of which might be seen pipes and flutes, the 
instruments of revelry, not of war." ^ 

It is possible, of course, that Posidonius caricatured his 
countrymen. The fact that he himself was of Apamea shows 
that the stock could still produce men capable of taking the 
highest place in the literary and scientific world. But the 
traces of intellectual activity among the Syrian Greeks are, it 
must be admitted, scanty. The only way in which we can 
estimate it is by noting which of the memorable names are 
coupled with a Syrian origin. And this is an unsure method. 
For the literary world was cosmopolitan, and a man's activity 
might not lie in the place where he was born. There is, how- 

' Posidonius aji. Athen. v. 210/, and xii. 527 c. 

^ Larissa, whose citizens seem to have maintained their manly character (see 
paye 215), had probably revolted from dt'iiendence upon Apamea. 
^ Posidonius ap. Athen. iv. 176 h. 

SYEIA 225 

ever, this to be said, that some degree of culture must be 
supposed ill the early environment of men who left their 
native place to seek learning or literary fame, something to 
have stimulated them to such a quest. 

Looking, then, at the list of remembered names in all 
departments of culture, we find that Antioch, the greatest of 
the cities, contributes during the Seleucid epoch only a Stoic 
philosopher, ApoUophanes, and a writer on dreams, Phoebus. 
Cicero describes Antioch as a " city once much resorted to, and 
abounding in men of the highest education and in the pursuit 
of liberal learning."^ Seleucia-in-Pieria produced ApoUophanes, 
who was body-physician to Antiochus III, and made some 
valuable contributions to ancient medicine. The only Syrian 
city to whose name any literary lustre attaches is one which 
did not pass under Seleucid supremacy till the time of 
Antiochus III, Gadara. This is leaving out of count the 
Phoenician cities, to which we shall come presently. 

One question which naturally suggests itself about tliis 
Syrian Hellenism is whether the newcomers were influenced 
to any extent by the people of the land, whether they adopted 
their traditions and modes of thought. We have very few 
data to go upon. The matter of language, which is a capital 
point, must be largely conjectural. The educated classes in 
the cities of course spoke Greek. But was it usual for them 
to have any real knowledge of the native language, without 
which a communication of ideas must have been very scanty ? 
That they picked up common words and phrases, as an Anglo- 
Indian does of Hindostani, is to be taken for granted,^ but does 
not prove much. It is somewhat more significant that the 
nicknames of some of the later Seleucids (Balas, Siripides, 
Zabinas) are Aramaic. The Antiochene populace with whom 
they started was, no doubt, bilingual. 

The only distinct borrowing of native tradition which we 
can point to is in the cults. The ancients thought it prudent 
to honour the gods of a land into which they came, even 

1 Cicero, Pro Arch. 3. 

* Melcager of Gadara (who was, it is true, of Syrian origin) in one of his 
epitaphs asks to be greeted in whichever language is the niother-tongue of the 
passer-by, with the Aramaic " Salam," the Phceuician " Aucluiii" (?), or the 
Greek " Chaire," Anth. Pal. vii. 419. 



when they came as conquerors. Most, if not all, of the new 
cities stood where native towns or villages had stood before 
them, each with its local Baal or Astarte. These cults were, 
no doubt, in most cases retained, the Greeks, of course, giving 
to the native deities the names of their own gods. 

At Antioch there was a temple of Artemis Persike, that 
is, one form of the great Mother-goddess worshipped by the 
Semites and peoples of Asia Minor.^ 

At Seleucia-in-Pieria there appears from the coins to have 
been a temple whose deity was represented by a conical stone, 
and that it was an old local god is shown by the name of Zeus 
Casius, which is often attached to the symbol. Zeus Casius 
was the god of the neighbouring mountain,^ worshipped from 
time immemorial by the Phoenician coasters. Sometimes the 
epithet on the coins is not Casius but Keraunios, and this 
suggests that the thunderbolt, the sacred emblem of the city, 
may be connected with the old worship, and the Greek story of 
the foundation of the city have been invented later to explain it. 

At Laodicea-on-the-Sea the coins show an armed goddess, 
identified by numismatists as Artemis Brauronia, whose image 
had been carried away from Attica by the Persians in 480, 
was found by Seleucus at Susa, and presented to his new 
colony.^ This does not exclude the possibility that in the 
native township, liamitha,* or Mazabda,^ which had preceded 
Laodicea, a goddess of this type had been worshipped, and that 
this was the motive which led Seleucus to choose Laodicea as 
the recipient of the venerable idol; or the whole story of the 
image may even have been invented in later times by the 
Laodiceans to give an Oriental cult a respectable Attic 

The great example of an ancient cult continuing to flourish 
under Greek rule was in Bambyce-Hieropolis. The deity here 
was Atargatis, i.e. Astarte (the wife) of 'Ateh. The temple 
and ritual are described at length by Lucian in a special work, 
Be Syria Dea. According to the story told him by the priests, 

' Libanius, Antioch. p. 291. 

'^ I do not know whether it has been suggested that the conical symbol may 
be meant for an image of the mountain in miniature. 

^ Paus. iii. 16, 8. ■* Steph. Byz. s.v. Laodicea. 

^ Malalas, p. 203. 


SYRIA 227 

the actual building was the work of Stratonice, the queen of 
Seleucus I and Antiochus I. The story told about her is cer- 
tainly fabulous, and it is therefore possible that an old legend 
may have become accidentally attached to her name from its 
resemblance in sound to that of Astarte. A prominent feature 
of the religion of Atargatis was the sanctity of fish. There 
was a pond with the sacred fish beside the temple, some of 
them with pieces of gold attached to their fins. On certain 
holy days the images of the gods were carried down to the 
pond.^ The priests were, of course, native Syrians, and there 
was a great body of consecrated eunuchs. 

A goddess of the same type as the Ephesian Artemis, 
certainly a form of the Mother-goddess, is seen on coins of one 
of the late Seleucids ; she was, no doubt, worshipped in the 
place where these coins were minted.^ On other coins of the 
same epoch is a bearded deity in a conical cap, holding an ear 
of corn in his hand.^ The Baal of Doliche in Cyrrhestice did 
not only continue to be worshipped by the Greeks, but his 
cult, as that of Zeus Dolichenus, was spread into foreign lands, 
and became one of that farrago of Oriental superstitions, cults 
of Sarapis, of Isis and Mithra which were so much in vogue 
throughout the Eoman Empire in the latter time of paganism. 
The same thing happened in the case of another Syrian god, 
Baal Marked, the " lord of dancing." At the village of Baeto- 
caece there was a miraculous shrine of the local god (Zeus 
Baetocaeceus), which obtained from a King Antiochus a grant 
of land and a sanction of its inviolability, as his letter (of 
which a copy made in Roman times was found on the spot) 
declares at large.^ 

It is difficult to trace the action of their new environment 
upon the Greeks and Macedonians of Syria ; it is no easier to 
follow the workings of the old Aramaean civilization and life 
under the strange forces which now came to bear upon them. 
The country-side retained its old speech, this much we know.^ 
In the cities the populace was largely, and perhaps mainly, 

^ Lucian, De ,'^yr. Dca 45-47. - Babelou, p. clxx. 

3 Ibid. p. clxxiii. * C.I.G. No. 4474. 

•' Becker- ilanjuardt, Handh. d. rom. Alt. iii. [). 258, note 1801. 


Aramaeau.^ Even as an official language Aramaic did not quite 
die out, as is shown by its use later on in Palmyra and among 
the Nabataeans. There were still circles, in such places pre- 
sumably as Edessa, in which Aramaic literature continued to 
be cultivated. The oldest works in Syriac w^hich have come 
down to us (Christian) show the language in a fixed and 
developed form. They were not first essays in a new medium. 
But although Aramaic speech and literature survived, they 
were discredited among the upper classes. They shrank with 
a sense of inferiority from contact with the Muses of Greece. 
Greek throughout Seleucid Syria was the proper language of 
official documents, of literature and of monuments. The 
Syrian youth, who aspired to be counted wise, found the 
wisdom of his fathers no longer of any savour, when he might 
put on the Hellenic dress and talk Zeno or Epicurus in the 
porticoes of the new cities. Meleager of Gadara seems to have 
been of native Syrian origin.- Even where the old language 
of the land was used, the thought was, no doubt, largely Greek, 
as is the case with the dialogue On Fate — one of the oldest 
Syriac works we possess, written early in the third century A.D. 
by a disciple of the heretic Bardesanes, and continuing possibly 
a pre-Christian tradition. It is not really surprising that that 
literature should have perished. Driven into the background 
by Greek literature as barbarian during the pagan period, it 
was annihilated in the Christian period as pagan." 

We have hitherto left aside that Semitic peo^jle of whom 
we know more than the Aramaeans, the Phoenicians of the 
coast. Greeks and Phoenicians had known each other since 
the prehistoric centuries. The Phoenicians, like the coast- 
peoples of Asia Minor, had already undergone some degree of 
Hellenic influence before Alexander. They had also before 
Alexander had a long experience of foreign rule. 

' The references in Miiller, Antiquitates Antioehcnae, p. 29 ; see also Pliilostr. 
A poll. i. 10. A curious custom is mentioned by Malalas, p. 29, by which on a 
certain day every year the Aramaean jiopulation at Antiocli went along knocking 
at the doors of the Greeks and saying something which is rendered, ^vxv 'loOs 
au'giadu. ' Anth. Pal. vii. 417. 

^ Nbldeke, Uebcr Mumvisen's Darstelluny der romischen Uerrschajt im Orient, 
Zeitschr. d. deutsch. morgenl. Gesell. xxxix. (1885), p. 331 f. 

SYKIA 229 

But under their various foreign masters, Assyrian, 
Babylonian, Persian, the Phoenicians had maintained from 
time immemorial their nationality and local independence. 
The cities had their own constitutions or kings. In opposition 
to Alexander, to the advent of a power far more penetrating 
and transforming than that of the earlier monarchies, history 
sees the national spirit of the Phoenicians blaze up for the last 
time in its original seat. In Africa, indeed, it was still to 
meet Eome for life or death. But the siege of Tyre, which 
delayed Alexander for some eight months in 332, was the last 
of those sieges of Phoenician cities of which history remembered 
so many, the last in which the defenders were the natives 
themselves, animated by a national or civic spirit against a 
foreign king. Sidon had been crippled twenty years before by 
the fearful vengeance taken by Artaxerxes Ochus for its revolt ; 
Tyre was crushed finally by Alexander. With some few 
exceptions, all its inhabitants who could not escape were 
killed or sold for slaves. Some of the old population may 
have drifted back, strangers came in to fill the gaps, Tyre 
became again a great commercial town,^ but the old spirit never 
returned, the ancient tradition was broken for ever. 

In the new population the Hellenic element was probably 
considerable. At any rate the old Phoenician cities now 
undergo the same sort of transformation into Hellenic cities 
as we have seen in the case of the Aramaean cities. The 
Phoenician tradition would seem, however, to have been less 
completely suppressed by the new culture. Not only are 
Phoenician inscriptions put up by private citizens under the 
Macedonian rule, but the coins of Tyre, Sidon, Aradus, 
Laodicea-Berytus and Marathus bear Phoenician legends 
alongside of Greek legends and the heads of the Macedonian 
rulers. As late as the Christian era there were many people 
in Tyre who did not even understand Greek.^ At the same 
time, the Hellenism which took root here became in time more 
vigorous and productive than that in the Aramaean domain. 
Several of the prominent philosophers of the last centuries B.C. 
are described as being of Tyre or of Sidon.^ In the closing 

' Strabo xvi. 757. - Socrates, Tf/.s/. rtx. i. 19. 

•* Sec Susomihl, Geschichte der griech. Lit. in d. Alexandrin€r::cit ; Zeno of 


century before Christ, the development of the Greek epigram, 
" when it had come to a standstill in Alexandria, reached its 
completeness on the Phoenician coast, on a soil, that is, properly 
Semitic but saturated with Greek culture and civilization." ^ 

There is another region which we have to consider in 
connexion with Syria. 

We have seen that Cilicia went, according to ancient 
geography, rather with Syria than Asia Minor. The Seleucid 
kings who wished to reign in both naturally looked upon 
Cilicia as theirs. As a matter of fact the Cilician plains were 
cut off both from Syria and from the rest of Asia Minor by 
tremendous mountain barriers, communicating with Asia Minor 
only by the narrow doorway of the " Cilician Gates," with 
Syria by a pass equally narrow between mountain and sea, the 
" Syrian Gates," or by the difficult roads over the Amanus. 
Cilicia, whose native population was probably akin to the 
Aramaeans of Syria, had a history which went back like that 
of Syria into the days of Assyrian supremacy, and had, like 
Syria, its cities of old fame. Soli, Mallus and Tarsus, the seat 
under the Achaemenians of those semi-independent native 
princes who bore the name of Syennesis. But the Hellenic 
influence had come to work earlier in this region ; the old 
cities had already become more than half Hellenized by the 
time that Alexander arrived, and thought it decent to appear 
as Greek colonies. Actual Greek colonists may indeed have 
come to settle in them. Soli claimed Argos and Ehodes as 
its mother -cities." Tarsus called sometimes the Greek hero 
Triptolemus, sometimes the Assyrian king Sardanapallus its 
founder.^ Mallus had been founded in the dim days of Greek 
legend by Mopsus and Amphilochus.* Mopsus, indeed, as a 
wandering hero figured largely in the myths of the Greek 
colonies along the south coast of Asia Minor, and the most 

Sidon (Stoic), i. p. 73 ; Diodorus of Tyre (Peripatetic), i. p. 154 ; Antipater of 
Tyre (Stoic), ii. p. 247 ; Zeno of Sidon (Epicurean), ii. p. 261 ; Diotimus of 
Tyre (Democritean), ii. p. 279 ; Boethus of Sidon (Peripatetic), ii. p. 307. 

' Susemihl ii. p. 551. 

2 Strabo xiv. 671 ; Mela i. § 71. ^ strabo liv. 672, 673. 

* Ihid. 675 ; Arrian Anab. ii. 5, 9. 

SYKIA 231 

important town of the interior of Cilicia after Tarsus bore in 
Greek the name of Mopsu-hestia, the Hearth of Mopsus. 

The Hellenism of the cities of Cilicia vindicated itself in 
the third century by its fruits. Just as at the very beginning 
of Greek philosophy, in the case of Thales, there had been 
matter supplied to Hellenic thought by the Phoenician tradition, 
so now it was on this ground, where Hellenic cities had grown 
up among a Semitic people, that the great philosophic school 
of later Hellenism, the Stoic, took its rise. The founder, Zeno, 
was a native of Citium in Cyprus, the Phoenician Chittim ; 
but his follower, Chrysippus, who developed and systematized 
the doctrine, the " second father " of the school, was a Cilician 
Greek,^ of Soli, born just about the time that Seleucus Nicator 
wrested Asia Minor from Lysimachus. Tarsus became a 
principal seat of the Stoic school. Zeno, the successor of 
Chrysippus, was of Tarsus,^ so was Antipater, head of the 
school somewhat later ; ^ the fellow - pupil of Antipater, 
Archedemus ; * the disciple of Antipater, Heraclides,^ and 
Nestor.® Among the Stoics of a still later generation we hear 
of the Cilicians, Crates of Mallus/ and his disciple, Zenodotus 
of Mallus,^ and several of those philosophers who were associated 
as friends and teachers with the leading men of Eome in the 
last age of the Eepublic were natives of this region.^ Some of 
the Cilician philosophers inclined to other schools than the 
Stoic. One of the greatest names among the leaders of the 
Academy in Athens was that of Grantor of Soli,^° and we hear 
of a Diogenes of Tarsus as an Epicurean.^^ Tarsus by the last 
century B.C. had become one of the great " universities " of 
the Greco-Eoman world. " Such an enthusiasm for philosophy 
and all the other parts of a liberal education has been developed 
in the people of this city," says Strabo,^" " that they have 
surpassed Athens and Alexandria and all other places one 
might mention as seats of learning and philosophical study. 

1 Susemilil, Gesch. d. gr. Lit. i. p. 75 f. ^ Suscraihl i. p. 82. 

3 Ibid. p. 84. ■» Ihid. p. 85. 

5 Ihid. p. 87. * Ibid. ii. p. 243. 

■? Ihid. p. 4. 8 /^,j^_ p. 14. 

^ Athenodorus (called Cordylio) of Tarsus (Susemilil ii. p. 246) ; Athenodorus 
of Cana [id. p. 248) ; Xenarchus of Seleucia {id. p. 321). 

i» Susemihl i. p. 118. " Ibid. ii. p. 258. '^ ^iv. 673. 


Here all the students are natives, and strangers do not readily 
come to reside. . . . They have schools for all branches of 
literary culture." It is not only in philosophy that Cilicia 
produced great names. Soli, whose Hellenic character was of 
an older standing than Tarsus, produced men of letters in the 
first century of Macedonian rule who attained world-wide 
fame. Castorion of Soli was even commissioned at Athens 
(309-308) to compose hymns for public festivals.^ A still 
greater name is that of Aratus, the author of the astronomical 
poem which we still possess, the model for numerous imita- 
tions by later writers, Greek and Roman.^ The tragic poet 
Dionysiades of Mallus or Tarsus is by some reckoned among 
the " Pleiad " of Seven which shone at the court of the second 
Ptolemy.^ Apollodorus of Tarsus was known as a com- 
mentator on Euripides and Aristophanes.* 

As to the working of native Cilician influence upon 
Cilician Hellenism, we have the same indications as in Syria 
of the continuance of the old cults. On coins of Mallus, 
struck under the Seleucids and Eomans, appears the goddess of 
the neighbouring Megarsus, the usual Semitic Mother-goddess, 
whom the Greeks here called Athene.^ So, too, on the coins 
of Tarsus a common type is a curious pyramidal monument or 
shrine with a barbarian male-deity depicted upon it, whom 
Babelon conjectures to be Zeus Dolichenus.*' 

Of the events which took place in Syria and the adjoining 
provinces under Seleucus and his earlier successors we know 
almost nothing. These regions had, of course, formed part of 
the realm of Antigonus till tlie battle of Ipsus. After that 
Syria passed to Seleucus, but Cilicia was at first handed over 
to Plistarchus, the brother of Cassander, and the garrison set 
by Antigonus in Tyre and Sidon held firm for Demetrius 
when the news of Ipsus reached them. As we saw,' Demetrius 
expelled Plistarchus from Cilicia and occupied the country in 
299, at the time when Seleucus and Demetrius were friends. 

1 Susemihl ii. p. 518. 2 j^^i j p_ 284 f. 

* Ibi/l. p. 280. ■* Ibid. ii. p. 178. 

'•' Babelon, p. cxxxii. * Ibid. p. clvi. f. 

7 P. 63. 

SYEIA 233 

But it was exactly because Seleucus wished himself to be 
master both in Cilicia and on the Phoenician coast that the 
rupture between them occurred. Demetrius refused on any 
terms to part either with Cilicia or the Phoenician cities. 
Then in the following years, whilst Demetrius was busy in 
Greece and Macedonia, Seleucus succeeded in making Cilicia 
his. At the same time Demetrius lost Tyre and Sidon. Into 
whose hands did they fall ? They lay close both to Northern 
Syria, which belonged to Seleucus, and to Palestine, which had 
been occupied by Ptolemy. We have not yet any conclusive 
evidence to show which of the rival houses at this juncture 
obtained possession of them.^ 

The score of years, however, during which Seleucus 
Nicator ruled Syria, if they have furnished no matter to the 
historians, were far from unimportant. A great work of 
organization, of Ilellenization, as to which the historians are 
silent, must have been carried through. The four great cities 
of Seleucid Syria, Antioch, Seleucia-in-Pieria, Apamea, and 
Laodicea, as well as a large number of the lesser Greek 
communities, were founded and started in life. The division 
of the country into districts, such as Seleucis, Cyrrhestice, and 
Commagene, and of Seleucis again into the four satrapies 
corresponding to the four great cities,^ presumably goes back 
to the reign of Seleucus. Thenceforth these Greek com- 
munities were the active and determining element in the 

As soon as the death of Seleucus became known, a faction 
hostile to his house raised its head in the Syrian cities. 
Antiochus I found the SjTitm Macedonians and Greeks largely 
in arms against him. " In the beginning of the reign of King 
Antiochus," says the Sigean Inscription,^ " at the instant of his 
accession he adopted an honourable and glorious policy, and 
whereas the cities in Seleucis were troubled in those days by 
those who had made insurrection, he sought to restore them to 
peace and their original well-being, to do vengeance on the 

^ See Api)endix 0. 

^ Strabo xvi. 749. That satrapy really was the official name for these sub- 
divisions of Seleucis is confirmed by an inscription, O.I.G. No. 4474. 
3 Michel, No. 52.';. 


rebellious, as justice would, and to recover his father's kingdom. 
So, cherishing an honourable and just purpose, and not only 
finding the army and the court (tov<; ^tX-ou?) zealous to carry 
his cause to victory, but having the favour and assistance of 
heaven, he brought back the cities to a state of peace and the 
kingdom to its original well-being." Through these high- 
sounding official phrases we must see all that can be seen of 
the truth. 

From this moment till Seleucus II is driven out of Asia 
Minor by the battle of Ancyra, the history of Syria is a 
blank, except in so far as it is involved in the long wars 
between Seleucid and Ptolemy. War indeed seems to have 
been opened by a battle, in which the Seleucid army was 
commanded by King Antiochus I in person, somewhere in 
Syria — although, if Antiochus was the aggressor, most probably 
in the Ptolemaic province south of the Lebanon. At least, a 
Babylonian inscription says that in the year 274-273 B.C. 
King Antiochus, who had come east of the Euphrates, returned 
to the " land beyond the Eiver " ^ against the army of Egypt. 
Ptolemy's strength lay on the sea, and perhaps the interior of 
Syria was less involved in the war, even on the frontier, than 
the coasts. The only recorded incident of which inland Syria 
is the scene is the capture of Damascus. Damascus was held 
by a Ptolemaic garrison under Dion; King Antiochus (the 
First, no doubt) was with an army at some days' distance. 
Antiochus knew that Dion was receiving intelligence of his 
movements, and accordingly caused his army to celebrate a 
Persian festival and in appearance give themselves up to 
jollity. This deceived Dion and threw him off his guard. 
Antiochus crept round upon Damascus by mountain and 
desert solitudes, fell upon it unawares, and took the city." In 
242 Damascus is in Seleucid possession.^ Whether the Seleucid 
kings kept their hold on this important place all the time 
from its capture by Antiochus till that date, or whether it 
changed hands with the varying fortunes of the war we do 
not know. 

^ This, of course, was the ordinary designation of Syria in the oflBcial 
language of the old Persian Empire, Ezra 4, 10 ; Babelon, Perses Achd- 
menides, p. xlv. ^ Polyaen. iv. 15. '' Eus. i. 251. 


SYEIA 235 

It is in the provinces open to the sea that the struggle 
was probably fiercest. The possession of Cilicia and the 
Phoenician coast, with their wealth in timber, was especially 
important to a power like the Egyptian. 

Cilicia seems to have changed hands at least three times. 
If the poem of Theocritus is any evidence, the second Ptolemy 
before 271^ had ousted the Seleucid. He "gives the signal to 
the warriors of Cilicia." ^ Then Antiochus II seems to have 
recovered it, since it is not among the countries inherited by 
Ptolemy III in the Inscription of Adule. Then again it is 
conquered by Ptolemy III in the campaign for which we have 
the Ptolemaic officer's dispatch.^ And in Ptolemaic possession 
it still was on the accession of Antiochus III. 

From the Gurob papyrus we get a fragmentary view of 
the organization of Cilicia as a Seleucid province in 246. It 
is, as we saw, under the strategos Aribazus, divided into smaller 
districts with hyparcJis of their own, whom the Ptolemaic 
captain describes likewise as strategoi ; that is, the same 
general form of government appears as we find in the rest of 
the Empire. The town of Seleucia is, for the moment at any 
rate, the headquarters of the administration. Soli is seen to 
take a line of its own, shifting its allegiance to the house of 
Ptolemy at discretion. 

Prom the outbreak of the war, during the time of the two 
first Antiochi, Tyre and Sidon are under Ptolemaic influence. 
Tyre strikes coins of Ptolemy with an era dating from 
275-274, that is, from about the time when hostilities were 
opened in Syria."* Sidon also strikes coins of Ptolemy II 
with dates which run from 261 to 247.^ A certain Philocles, 
son of Apollodorus, who commands Ptolemaic forces in the 
Aegean, is described as " king of the Sidonians." ^ Phoenicia is 
mentioned on the monument of Adule as one of the countries 
inherited by Ptolemy III from his father. The more 
northern Phcenician cities, on the other hand, were probably 

1 See V. Prott, Rhein. Mus. liii. (1898), p. 475. 

^ na/x0(;Xot(rt re TrScr: koI aixM'''°-'^^ KiXiKeacn \ aafiaivei, Theoc. xvii. 1. 87. 
» See p. 185. 

•* Head, Hist. Num. p. 675. ° Ibid. p. 672. 

•^ Michel, No. 373 ; cf. Winckler, AUorientalische Forschwigen, 2te Reihe, 
ii. p. 295. 


Seleucid from the battle of Ipsus. Some of the coins of 
Antiochus I bear the monogram of Aradus/ The year 
259-258 is the starting-point of a new era for Aradus,^ and 
this is generally thought to show the concession of complete 
autonomy to the city by Antiochus II. In the " Laodicean 
War" an attempt was made by Ptolemy to capture these 
northern Phcenician cities, but unsuccessfully. Orthosia, 
which was beleaguered by his forces, was relieved by Seleucus 
Kallinikos in 242-241.^ Later on Aradus secured fresh 
privileges by declaring for Seleucus against Antiochus Hierax. 
In recompense for this, the obligation to deliver up fugitives 
from the Seleucid realm was remitted, and such right of 
sanctuary, in times when political fugitives of wealth and 
influence were numerous, proved extremely profitable to 
the city.^ 

We have already in a former chapter dealt with the 
occurrences on the coast of Cilicia and Syria in the opening 
stage of the Laodicean War.^ 

The expulsion of Seleucus Kallinikos from the country 
north of the Taurus shifted the centre of gravity in the 
Empire. The disreputable court of Antiochus Hierax at Sardis 
could not claim equality with the court of the elder brother, 
which was now fixed in the Syrian Antioch. By this change 
Antioch rose at once in dignity. And the change made itself 
apparent in the outward aspect of the city. Seleucus 
Kallinikos added a new quarter.*^ 

Of the events which took place in Syria in these days we 
know only the incident of Stratonice and her rebellion. 
Stratonice was that aunt of Seleucus who had been married to 
Demetrius, son of the King of Macedonia. In 239 Demetrius 
succeeded to the throne and was moved to contract a new 
marriage with an Epirot princess. To Stratonice the idea of 
remaining at the Macedonian court under the new 7'4gime was 
not unnaturally repugnant. She departed, studying revenge, 
for the court of her nephew. Her scheme was that he should 
marry her and declare war on her late husband. When, 

^ Head, p. 666. '^ Droysen iii. p. 312 ; Head, p. 66t^. 

^ See p. 190. ^ Strabo xvi. 754. ^ See p. 185 f. 

« Strabo xvi. 749. 

SYRIA 237 

however, she proposed it to Seleucus he displayed a mortifying 
unwillingness to marry his aunt. For this attitude on his part 
Stratonice had been wholly unprepared. But her spirit was 
not broken. She waited her time. The Antiochenes came to 
know the figure of an unfortunate princess who moved amongst 
them as an injured and angry woman. Her opportunity came 
about 235, when the King was absent on an expedition into 
Iran. She then summoned the city to revolt, and so well had 
she played her game that the city responded and took up arms 
on her behalf against Seleucus. When the King returned from 
the East he was reduced to the necessity of recapturing his 
capital. Stratonice was unable to offer a prolonged defence. 
When she saw that the city must fall she fled to Seleucia. 
Thence she might have escaped, but was induced by an adverse 
dream to put off sailing. As a result of this delay she was 
caught by the people of Seleucus and put to death.^ The 
story certainly proves that the restiveness which the Syrian 
Greeks had shown at the accession of Antiochus I was not 
extinct under Seleucus Kallinikos. 

^ Just, xxviii. 1 ; Agatharchides ap. Joseph. Con. Ap. i. § 206 f. {F.H.G. iii. 
p. 196). This story is commonly adduced as evidence that Seleucia was at this 
moment in Seleucid possession (so Niese ii. p. 168). That it was momentarily 
recaptured by Seleucus is of course possible, but the story does not say so. The 
delay of Stratonice at Seleucia might have been the cause of her being captured 
by the pursuers, even if it were not in Seleucia itself that she was captured. 




At a time beyond the vision of history some members of the 
human family found the country about the lower reaches of 
the rivers Euphrates and Tigris — then a swampy wilderness — 
good to live in. They began to cast seed into the black earth 
and to dry lumps of it in the sun for the building of houses. 
Presently they went on to improve Nature's distribution of the 
water, digging new channels which carried it from the swamp, 
where there was too much of it, to the desert, where there was 
too little. The area of serviceable land gradually extended. 
Here and there the mud-brick houses clustered into villages. 
Then the villages became cities, with great temples and palaces 
and towers for star-gazing. Society became more complex ; 
there were rich and poor ; rich, who wanted a variety of 
things to make their life easeful and beautiful ; and poor, 
whose myriad hands were busied in their manufacture. The 
communication of thought between man and man or between 
one generation and another, which the complexity of society 
now required, was made possible by the fixing of speech in 
written signs. All this process was already accomplished by 
the time history becomes cognizant of human things. The 
cities and their civilization were already there ; not Babylon 
only — for Babylon was but one of many sisters and not the 
first-born, though in time she eclipsed them all — Ur, Eridu, 
Uruk, and many others stood once on an equal footing. Who 
the people were, who first lived in these cities, what their 
affinities were with other branches of the human race, history 
cannot say. The people who possessed the land later on were 



Semites, cousius of the Jew and the Arab, but these Semites, 
it is believed, were not the original inhabitants ; they broke 
in from the desert upon the older people and overwhelmed 
them, but became themselves assimilated in manners and 
traditions to the conquered race, using its old-world tongue 
as a sacred language alongside of their own living Semitic 

This branch of the Semitic peoples did not occupy the 
alluvial country about the lower Euphrates only — the seat of 
that primeval civilization of which we have just spoken. Its 
settlements were pushed up the Tigris to the point where it 
issues from the Armenian highlands. At intervals on its 
banks cities arose whose language and culture did not differ 
essentially from those of Babylon. In process of time two 
great monarchical states shaped themselves : a northern 
one, whose centre was first at Asshur and then at Nineveh — 
what we know as the Assyrian kingdom — and a more southern 
one, in the alluvial country about the lower Euphrates, whose 
centre was in Babylon. In the day of their greatness the 
northern Semites, the Assyrians, were able to subjugate 
their cousins of the south ; but the yoke was impatiently 
borne. At last it was finally broken. About 607 B.C. the 
Assyrian kingdom succumbed to a combined attack of Baby- 
lonians and Medes. Nineveh fell. Under Nabopolassar 
(625-605) and Nebuchadnezzar (605-562) Babylon had a 
new period (brief enough) of independence and glory. 

During all these centuries the Semitic kingdoms on the 
Euphrates and Tigris had been the focus of civilization in the 
East. They were to the peoples of mountain and desert round 
about them what the Eoman Empire was afterwards to the 
peoples of Central Europe. There was no other area of culti- 
vation in AVestern Asia so wide and productive as Babylonia ; 
there were no other cities so large and populous as those on 
the banks of the two rivers ; no centres of industry to compare 
with those great hives of labour ; no wisdom like the wisdom 
of the Chaldaeans ; no king so exalted as the " King of kings." 
The influence of Babylon radiated as far as the Mediterranean 
on the west and India on the east. From all parts of the 
world there was a demand for its wares, especially for its 


embroideries and rich tissues, "goodly Babylonish garments." 
The river, which created its fertility, made at the same time 
a great highway through the desert, by which it communicated 
with the lands to the north and west, with Syria and Asia 
Minor and Egypt; on the east roads ran from it through 
Assyria or through Elam up to the Iranian plateau. And by 
these routes Babylon not only exported its own products ; it 
was the central mart, through which the products of one end 
of the world found their way to the other. In its bazaars 
merchants perhaps chaffered for wares of India which were 
destined to be used by the peoples of the far-away Aegean.^ 
Babylon was thus the commercial capital of the world, the 
heart in which all the arteries of traffic met. Its unit of 
weight, the manah, set the standard for all nations ; the Greeks 
measured by the mnd, the Indians of the Eigveda by the 
mmid — a witness to the universal authority of Babylon. 

It was not commerce only which brought Babylon into 
contact with foreigners, but in a lesser degree war as well. 
The Babylonians, being an industrial not a martial people, were 
obliged to have most of their fighting done for them, like the 
Carthaginians. Hard by on the east the lower slopes of the 
Iranian border range nourished a people who made excellent 
soldiers, and could be hired for money, predecessors of the 
modern Bakhtiaris. From how far afield they drew their 
mercenaries under the second Babylonian Empire is shown by 
the case already mentioned of the brother of the Lesbian poet 

Men from every quarter were thus drawn to Babylon and 
the other great cities of the Euphrates and Tigris, Phoenician 
merchantmen, nomads of the desert, and hardy fighting men 
from the hills of Asia Minor and Iran. Before their eyes 
were displayed the riches and glory, the handicraft and science 
of these settled kingdoms. It is no wonder that many nations 
learnt in their infancy from Babylon, that traces of Babylonian 
influence may be found in the primitive traditions of Canaan 
and India and Iran. 

' The question whether there was any maritime trade between Babylonia and 
otlier lands before Greek rule is a controverted one ; see Speck, Hav^elsgeschichte 
des AUcrlums, §§ 107, 135. 


In the sixth century B.C. the long dominion of the Semites 
in Western Asia came to an end. Kurush, whom we call 
Cyrus, the chief of a Persian clan, led his countrymen forth 
from their mountains to seize, first the hegemony of the Iranian 
race, and then the empire of the world. On the 3rd of 
Marheshwan (about October 20) 539 Cyrus entered Babylon 
as a conqueror. But Babylon did not thereby lose its imperial 
dignity. Its greatness was too well based on its old renown, 
its geographical position, its immense population, its commercial 
and industrial supremacy. It could not but be still the capital 
of the world, the seat of the " King of kings," even though that 
title now belonged to a foreigner. During the hot Babylonian 
summer indeed the Iranian monarch used to withdraw to his 
own high country, to Persepolis or Ecbatana ; but for the 
seven cooler months of the year the Persian court resided at 

The Babylonians did not think without regret of the days 
of Nebuchadnezzar. They were troubled with memories of 
old empire. More than once they rose in revolt — in vain 
revolt. It was this disposition which moved the Persian kings 
to break their spirit by a series of rigorous measures.^ The 
Babylonians looked on ruined temples, the evidence of their 
master's vengeance, or saw their golden images carried off to 
satisfy his greed.^ Xerxes, after one of their revolts, forbade 
altogether the carrying of arms ; let the Babylonians keep 
themselves to their harps and flutes, the life of the brothel 
and the bazaar.* But although under unsympathetic rule, 
Babylon continued to be the greatest of cities, " not so much a 
city in dimensions as a nation." ^ The population of Babylonia 
was the densest known,^ with elements drawn from every 
nation under heaven.'^ Agriculture, manufactures and trade, 
three unfailing springs of wealth, made Babylonia the richest 
province of the Empire.^ As to the first, it was a chief duty 

^ Xen. Cyrop. viii. 6, 22 ; Plutarch, De exilio, 12, etc. 

2 Arist. Pol. iii. 13. 

3 Hdt. i. 183 ; Arr. Anab. iii. 16, 4. 

* Plutarcli, Apophth. S^p^ou, 2. 

* Arist. Pol. iii. 3. « IHd. ii. 6. 

'' Ba,/?i/\dj»' 5' 7) TToXi'ixpvaos Trd/x/xt/crof dlx^oc ire/j.w€t avpS-qv, Aescli. Pcrsae, 52. 

** Xen. Cyrop. vii. 2, 11. 



of the satrap to regulate that elaborate canal system upon 
which Babylonian agriculture depended, and immense bodies 
of men were employed upon the works.^ Herodotus tells us 
what Babylonia was like in the middle of the fifth century, 
after a hundred years or so of Persian rule. He saw its flat 
expanse, intersected by canals, stretching away in endless fields 
of wheat and millet and sesame, dotted with clumps of palm. 
For corn, "the fruit of Demeter," he knew no land like it. 
Wheat crops yielded from two to three hundredfold, and the 
size which millet and sesame attained, " I could say, but I 
will not, because I know very well that even what I have 
already said about its corn has gone far beyond the bounds of 
belief of such persons as have not been to the land of Babylon!" - 
The industries of Babylon were still busily plied. Its many- 
coloured embroidery was as much in demand under the Persians 
as centuries before in the time of Joshua, or centuries after 
under the Eoman emperors.^ 

With regard to trade, Babylon held its place as the great 
mart of Asia. Herodotus ^ describes the boats which regularly 
brought merchandize down the river and unloaded in Babylon. 
In the hot summer nights merchants from cooler lands could 
be seen in its crowded khans, trying to secure a little relief by 
lying on skins filled with water.^ The traffic with India 
naturally continued under an empire which extended over all 
the intervening country. 

There are nevertheless indications that the conditions were 
not as favourable to trade under Persian rule as they might 

1 Arr. Anah. vii. 21, 5 ; Strabo xvi. 739, 740. ^ jjdt. i. 193. 

3 Arr. Aimb. vi. 29, 5, 6 ; Philostr. VitaApoll. i. 25 ; Plin. N.H. viii. § 196 ; 
Paus. V. 12, 4 ; Plutarch, Cato Major, 4 ; Mart. viii. 28, 17 ; Justinian, Pan- 
dect, xxxiv. 2, 25 ; Reber, Ueber altchalddische Kunst, Zeitschr. f. Assyr. i. 
(1886), p. 291 f. It seeins also to have produced a special sort of red or purple 
(Philostr. Epist. 54). We hear a good deal of Babylonian ungents and perfumes, 
but it is doubtful how far they were actually made up there, and how far imported 
into Babylon from India. It was at any rate the fashion for every Baylonian to 
scent his whole body (Hdt. i. 195 ; Athen. xv. 692 c ; Pollux vi. 104 ; Hor. 
Odes ii. 11, 16 ; TibuU. iii. 6, 63. Cf. Aesch. Ag. 1271, 'Zvpi.ov dyXdifffia, i.e. 
'A(T(TOpcov—Ba,hyloma,Ti). The other industries, which can be gathered from 
scattered allusions, such as the manufacture of seals and carved work (Hdt. i. 
195), of reed-baskets (Strabo xvi. 740), and beds of palm-branches (Theophr. 
Plant, ii. 6, 6), do not appear to have been of more than local importance. 

M. 194. ^ Plutarch, Symp. 2, 2, 12. 


have been. The important water-way of the Tigris was blocked 
by " cataracts," which Alexander found it an easy matter to 
level, and which the local tradition asserted to have been made 
by the King's order, on purpose to bar the way to hostile ships.^ 
The sea-route, again, between the Persian Gulf and India seems 
to have been forgotten ; one would gather, from the accounts 
of Nearchus' voyage, that it was of the nature of a re-discovery, 
and this is all the more remarkable since these waters had 
been explored for Darius Hystaspis by the Greek Scylax, and 
Herodotus expressly declares that the sea-route was thereafter 
in use.^ One might conclude that a weak commercial policy 
had marked the Persian government only in its declining days. 
We have an incidental sign of its slipshod administration at 
the end of the dynasty in the circumstance that a law which 
imposed a duty of 10 per cent on imports into Babylon, 
although it had never been repealed, had fallen into general 
neglect by the coming of Alexander.^ 

Some estimate of the relative importance of the Euphrates 
and Tigris regions to the Persian king can be formed from 
the revenue table of Darius, as given by Herodotus.* The 
Empire is divided for purposes of revenue into twenty districts, 
of which Babylonia and " the rest of Assyria " form one. 
When we deduct from the total annual revenue of the King 
the tribute in gold-dust, 360 talents, from the Indian district, 
we get a total of 7600 talents of silver (about 19,773,848 
rupees) from the remaining nineteen districts. And of this 
the single district of Babylonia and Assyria yields 1000 
(about 2,864,980 rupees). Egypt alone competes with it, 
yielding 700 talents.^ Besides this tribute in money, the 
various provinces were required to make contributions in kind 
to the support of the King and his army. The part taken in 
this by Babylonia exhibits its importance in a more striking 
way still. " There being twelve months to the year," says 
Herodotus, " for four ot them the land of Babylon supports 
him, and for the other eight all the rest of Asia. Thus the 

» Arr. Anab. vii. 7, 6. 2 jj^t. iv. 44. 

=» Arist. Oec. ii. 34. « iii. 89 f. 

* I have given the equivalents in rupees, because the fluctuating relation of 
silver and gold makes the comparison with a gold standard misleading. 


Assyrian country is according to its capacities a third part of 
Asia." ^ The governorship of this province, he goes on to say, 
was the most lucrative appointment in the Empire. One 
satrap, whom he mentions, drew from it a daily income of an 
artabe (a bushel and a half) of silver. 

Closely associated with Babylonia in past history was a 
land to the east of it, the torrid river-country which intervenes 
between the ramparts of Iran and the Persian Gulf, watered 
by the Choaspes (Kerkha), the Copratas (Dizful), and the 
Eulaeus (Karun). It is described to-day as " a malarious 
labyrinth of meandering rivers and reedy swamps." ^ Once it 
was the seat of a unique civilization, of a people as alien from 
the Semites of Babylonia as from the races of Aryan speech 
on the farther table-land. According to one theory, they had 
come across from Africa. For centuries their kings were the 
antagonists, sometimes the conquerors, of the neighbouring 
Semitic powers. They were known by many names, to the 
Semites as Elam, to the Persians as Huzha, to the early 
Greeks (Herodotus, Aeschylus) as Kissioi. When the Mace- 
donians appeared in this part of the world, some of the 
Huzha maintained themselves as a robber people among the 
hills,^ but the Elamites of the lowland had probably forgotten 
the far-off days of their independence and glory. For 
hundreds of years they had borne the yoke of the stranger, 
Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, So completely had they been 
assimilated to their rulers that the Greeks could see no 
difference between their manners and customs and those of 
the Persians.'* Their country became in fact almost the 
central province of the Persian Empire. Its favourable 
position, near the cradle of the ruling race, and yet enough 
removed to free the monarch from the inconvenient aristocratic 
tradition of Iran and to overlook the western half of the 
Empire, led the Persian kings to make Susa (" Shushan the 
palace ") a chief residence of the court during the delicious 
Elamite spring and one of the principal treasuries of the 

1 i. 192. ■■' D. G. Hogartli, Tlie Nearer East, ]). 134. 

=* See p. 23. ■' Strabi) xv. 732. 

'" Strabo xv. 728 ; Xenophou, Cyro]). viii. 6, 22. 


In the autumn of 331, two hundred and eight years after 
the triumphal entry of Cyrus into Babylon, the city witnessed 
another triumphal entry. This too registered a new epoch in 
human history : after the Persian the man of Javan, the 
Hellene, the progenitor of the modern world, had come to 
reign in the seats of the old civilization. Alexander had two 
courses open to him after the victory of Gaugamela, to pursue 
Darius into his native Iran, or, in the first place, to seize 
Babylon. The latter was the course which Darius had rightly 
conjectured he would take ; to possess the capital of the 
Empire was the thing most immediately essential ; the rich 
cities of the plain, Babylon and Susa, were the real " prize of 
the war," ^ Therefore Alexander pressed on south. Mazaeus,^ 
the greatest of the western satraps, who united under his 
governorship Cilicia, Syria and Mesopotamia, and to whom the 
disastrous battle of Gaugamela (Arbela) had only brought 
fresh credit, had thrown himself into Babylon with the wreck 
of his forces. But on Alexander's approach he at once sur- 
rendered ; no assault had to be made upon the famous 
Babylonian wall, Mazaeus was rewarded by being made 
satrap of Babylonia under the new Great King. 

Babylon thus passed under Greek rule, just ten years 
before Seleucus came to govern it. The change did not make 
much difference in the appearance of things there. A Persian 
grandee still held the place of satrap. It was rather as the 
restorer of the old order than as an innovator that Alexander 
presented himself to the Babylonians. He ordered the ruined 
templeS' to be rebuilt as in the days of Nebuchadnezzar, and 
in thirty days was gone again for fresh conquests. Only 
among the motley crowd of the bazaars one might now see 
here and there the mailed figure of a Macedonian soldier ; ^ 
and behind the caparisoned Persian satrap stood the real holders 
of power, Apollodorus of Amphipolis, the commander of the 
military forces of the province ; Agathon of Pydna, the comman- 
dant of the citadel; Asclepiodorus, who was over the tribute, 

^ ToO iroXi/jLov rb S.d\ov, Arr, Anab. iii. 16, 2. 

- On his coins he writes his name, in Aramaic, Mazdai, mc Babelon, Les 
Perxes Ach6me/iides, p. xliii. f. 

•* A garrison of 700 Maceilonians was lel't in tlio citadel, Died. xvii. 64 : cf. 
Curt. V. 1, 43. 


Whether Alexander intended Babylon to be ultimately 
capital of his Empire, or Alexandria in Egypt, or Pella in 
Macedonia, we do not know — whether even he intended to 
make one capital for the whole. Babylon, at any rate, seems 
to have been regarded as the capital for Asia from its conquest 
to the time of his death. It was the headquarters of 
Harpalus, chief treasurer of the Empire ; ^ and Alexander 
returned there in 323 to plan a new scheme of enterprise, and 
to make a new organization of the imperial army. Then 
Babylon, which had seen the glories of the oldest conquerors 
remembered by man, saw the youngest conqueror die. In 
Babylon the army and its chiefs made a new settlement for 
the Empire. 

We proceed to inquire how the conquering European race 
and this most ancient world acted upon each other. Alexander, 
as we saw, presented himself here, as in Egypt, as the restorer ; 
the evidences of Persian tyranny, ruined and impoverished 
temples, were to be no more seen. The gods of Babylon were 
to share in the impartial liberality of the universal King. 
But his magnificent projects were slackly prosecuted in his 
absence ; the Babylonian priests enjoyed the temple revenues, 
so long as the temples lay waste, and they felt a tenderer 
interest in their money-bags than in the honour of their 
gods,^ Here, too, Alexander had time only to adumbrate his 

The pupil of Aristotle and the educated men who accom- 
panied him looked with interest at the physical character of 
the lands into which they came. In Babylonia they were 
drawn to experiment in the acclimatizing of the plants of 
their native land. In this they had been anticipated to some 
extent by the old Eastern kings, who were zealous to collect 
the fauna and flora of remote countries in their gardens,* 


^ Harpalus had charge of the other treasuries as well as the Baliylonian, 
that of Ecbatana, for instance (Arr. Anab. iii. 19, 7), and his authority extended 
to Northern Syria and Cilicia (Athen. 595 d), but Babylon, one gathers, was his 
headquarters (Diod. xvii. 108 ; Plutarch, Alex. 35 ; Athen. 595 a, h, c). Diod. is 
incorrect in speaking of him as satrap. 

- Arr. Anab. vii. 17. ^ Strabo xvi. 738. 

■• Tiele, Babyl.-assyr. Gesch. p. 603 ; cf. Michel, No. 32. 


Now under the Macedonian supremacy the culture of the 
vine was attempted in Babylonia and the land of Elam on 
a new method adapted to the peculiarity of the soil.^ 
Harpalus vainly attempted to make ivy grow in the gardens 
of Babylon.^ 

But in a much more vital respect the aspirations of the 
old national kings were fulfilled in the larger and more 
systematic designs of the man of the West. Nebuchadnezzar, 
according to an account which perhaps emanates from Berosus, 
had shown interest in the coast traffic of the Gulf. He had 
attempted to make solid harbours in the swamp, and had built 
the town of Teredon towards the land of the Arabs.^ 

The Persian government, as we have seen, had cared little 
for such things. But now in the mind of Alexander the idea 
of a mighty sea -traffic between Babylon and India shaped 
itself. The expedition of Nearchus from the Indus to the 
Persian Gulf subserved this policy. The latter months of 
Alexander's life were almost entirely taken up with examining 
the water-ways of lower Babylonia, regulating the canal 
system, and framing a scheme for the exploration of Arabia. 
Near Babylon itself he began to dig a gigantic basin capable 
of containing a thousand vessels of war with the corresponding 
docks.* New cities of Greek speech even in this overpowering 
climate began to rise, one among the pools west of the 
Euphrates, in which a number of Greek mercenaries and 
broken veterans were planted,-'^ another to the east on the 
lagoons of the lower Eulaeus (Karim) — an Alexandria populated 
partly with natives from an old " royal town," partly, like the 
other city, with broken soldiers.^ 

Babylonia and the land of Elam, called by the Greeks 
Susiana, from Susa, its capital, formed two satrapies under 

In 321-320 Seleucus becomes satrap of Babylonia, and 

Antigenes, who commands the Silver Shields, satrap of Susiana. 

Till 316 Seleucus governs Babylonia. Of his administration 

1 Strabo iv. 731. - Theophr. ix. 4, 1. 

3 Abydenus, frag. 8, F.H.G. iv. p. 284. 

^ Arr. Anab. vii. 19. ^ lUd. vii. 21, 7. 

« Plin. N.H. vi. § 138. A very full discussion of the site of this city by 
Andreas will be found in Pauly- Wissowa, s. " Alexandreia, No. 13." 


during those four years we know next to nothing. One thing 
had become clear : in the dissensions of the Macedonian chiefs 
the native element was not a negligible quantity. It was 
largely owing to the support of natives that Docimus had 
overthrown Archon.^ To this fact Seleucus was no more 
blind than Antigonus or Ptolemy or Pithon in the case of 
their respective provinces. The one point told us as to his 
first period of rule is that " he bore himself honourably towards 
all men, evoking the good-will of the people, and preparing 
long beforehand partizans to help him, should he ever get an 
opportunity of striking for power.' 

» 2 

Can we form any idea of Babylon, as it appeared in the 
last days of its greatness, when Seleucus reigned as satrap in 
the palace of Nebuchadnezzar ? 

Babylon had many features in common with London — if 
we can think of London under an Oriental sun — its size, its 
industrial ferment, its great brick wharves with a hdbel of 
foreign seamen.^ It lay on either side of a river, a flat city 
of brick (so much more prosaic than a city of stone), with 
straight streets and houses three or four stories tall.* Unlike 
London, it was protected by a system of enormous walls from 
an invader. The whole province of Babylonia in the first 
place was shut off from Mesopotamia by the "Median Wall," 
which ran across the neck of land between the Euphrates and 
Tigris, 20 feet broad and 100 high, according to Xenophon,^ 
Coming down the left bank of the Euphrates, one passed 
through it by the " Babylonian Gates," ^ out of the Meso- 
potamian desert into the rich fields of Babylonia.^ Dominant 
in this expanse, the mighty circumvallations and towers of 
Babylon soon showed themselves. In the days of Nebuchad- 
nezzar the city had lain in a square tract enclosed by an outer 
and an inner wall, known respectively as Nimitti-Bel ("Founda- 
tion of Bel ") and Imgur-Bel (" May Bel show mercy "). But 

1 See p. 38. 2 djo^. xix. 91, 2. 

* Babel, the Hebrew form of Bab-ilu, the city of the confusion of tongues. 

* Hdt. i. 180, 3. 

^ Anah. ii. 4, 12. This wall is probably identical with the ^efiipdfitdos 
Siarelxifia of Strabo (ii. 80 ; xi. 529). 

^ Steph. Byz. Xapfidvdrj, '• Xen. Anah. i, 5. 


under the Persians the outer wall had been breached and 
suffered to fall into decay ; Imgur-Bel was still standing when 
Mazaeus delivered up the city to Alexander.^ Its compass is 
given by the Greeks as 360 stadia," or 38^ miles; its height 
as 50 cubits, or about 75 feet,^ and its breadth as 32 feet, so 
that two chariots of four horses could pass each other upon it. 
All the space within this immense barricade of brick, over 
9 square miles, was not taken up by building. It embraced 
royal hunting grounds and pleasances, and even tracts of 
corn-land, which might make the city independent, if need 
should be, of external supplies.* 

The flatness of the city had been redeemed under the 
Babylonian kings by artificial erections. The Babylonian 
plain-dwellers delighted above all things in gigantic towers. 
Their temples took this form ; their citadels were not nature's 
work, but piles of brick ; in the famous " Hanging Gardens " 
art had striven to reproduce by a series of ascending terraces, 
supported on arches and covered above with mould, the aspect 
of a mountain with all its romantic caverns and waving trees ^ 
— the work of one of the old kings, tradition asserted, whose 
queen had come from a land of hills. Another great pile was 
the palace on the right bank of the river — a city in itself, 
shut off from the common gaze by a wall of its own, and 
connected with the tower-temple called E-sagila. This inner 
" Royal City " was doubtless one of the two " citadels " which 
are spoken of in the days of Seleucus.^ Where the other 
citadel is to be placed is more questionable. But there is 
a strong presumption that, since we hear in the story of 
Alexander's last days of two " palaces," the other citadel is the 
same as the other palace. And this is borne out by the 
description of Diodorus, who says (following Ctesias) that the 

1 Abydenus, frag. 8, F.H.G. iv. p. 283. 

- Diod. ii. 7, 3. Curtius says 365 (v. 1, 26) ; the MSS. in Strabo xvi. 738 
give 385, but this is generally supposed to be a copyist's error. 

- Curt. V. 1, 26 ; Strabo xvi. 738. Diod. (ii. 7, 4), following Ctesias, says 
fathoms, not feet, but that is only the sort of inept mendacity one expects in 

* Curt. V. 1, 26 f. ; Arr. Anab. vii. 25. 

5 Diod, ii. 10 ; Curt. v. 1, 32 f. ; Strabo xvi. 738 ; Berosus, frag. 14 {F.H.G. 
ii. p. 507) ; Abydenus, frag. 8 [F.H.G. iv. p. 284). 
« Diod. xix. 100, 7 ; Plutarch, Dem. 7. 


two palaces were built in order that from them the sovereign 
might " overlook the whole city, and hold the keys of its 
points of vantage." ^ Now the local relation of the two palaces 
is fixed beyond mistake. They lay over against each other 
on opposite banks of the Euphrates,^ joined, according to one 
account, by a tunnel which ran under the river.^ Each of 
these palaces was fenced off from the city of the people, one 
of them by as many as three walls. They rose, these walls, the 
second above the first, and the inmost above the second, their 
faces of brick variegated with hunting scenes in bright enamels, 
and above all the copper roofs under a Babylonian sun crowned 
the Eoyal City with a crown of fire.** It was in one of these 
palaces that Alexander was stricken with his mortal sickness ; 
in the other he died.^ 

Below these palace-citadels the city of the common people 
spread on either side of the river. Although the days were 
long past when the Babylonians had borne rule in Asia, and 
history, concerned almost entirely with courts and wars, has 
little to say about them, the Babylonian people and the 
Babylonian civilization existed still. The cities which had 
been cities when Ecbatana and Persepolis, when Athens and 
Pella were not, were still hives of busy life. In Babylon 
itself, in Barsip (Greek Borsippa), Erech, Sippar, the old life 
went on and the old industries were plied. All over the 
Mediterranean lands, in the temples and houses of the new 
rulers of the world, might be seen splendid fabrics, covered 
with strange beasts and fantastic branchwork, upon which 
brown hands in the cities of the Euphrates had laboured after 
an immemorial tradition.^ Borsippa hummed with a multitude 
of looms which turned the flax of the Babylonian plains into 

1 Diod. ii. 8, 3. 

"^ Diod. loc. cit. ; Arr. Anab. vii. 25 ; Plutarch, Alex. 76. 

3 Cf. Philostr. Vit. Apoll. i. 25. 

* Diod. loc. cit.; Philostr. loc. cit.; Berosus, frag. 14; cf. Perrot et Chipiez, 
L'art dans l' antiquity, ii. p. 703 f. ; Delitzsch, Babylon (Leipzig, 1901). 

^ The objection which might be raised to the view just given is that while 
the mound called El Kasr certainly represents the palace on the eastern bank, 
there is no corresponding mound on the western. But the river appears here to 
have changed its course towards the west, and thus obliterated the traces of the 
other palace. 

^ See the references on p. 242. 


linen cloth for the merchantmen.^ The old formalities of 
law and business were observed ; those stamped clay tablets 
which record transactions done under Macedonian kings are 
of the same type as those made under Nebuchadnezzar. 

The old gods, although they could no more give their 
people the lordship of the nations, had not ceased to be served 
with sacrifice and prayer. The learned and priestly caste — 
Chaldaeans the Greeks called them — continued to hand down 
the ancient lore — theology, mythology, astrology, magic — and 
to write in the cuneiform character. Schools of them seem to 
have been connected with some of the great temples; we 
hear of such in Borsippa, Erech and Sippar.^ How far the 
Babylonian (Semitic) language remained in popular use cannot 
be exactly known. It had, to a large extent at any rate, been 
supplanted by Aramaic, the lingua franca of Western Asia. 
For legal and priestly documents the old language and character 
were employed as late as the last century before Christ.^ 

Babylon had a bad name for its moral atmosphere. There 
was all the vice inseparable from a great city, made more rank 
by the absence of national or civic enthusiasms, by an enervating 
climate, by an abundance of the means of luxury. There in 
the warm nights, while eye and ear were allured by flame-lit 
colours and artful music, sensuality put on its most seductive 
glamour. The lascivious city threatened to engulf the northern 
soldiery of Alexander hke an evil morass.'^ 

Seleucus reaped the fruit in 312 which he had sown 
during his first administration. Babylon received him back 
with open arms. As we saw, he had soon brought the 
neighbouring Susiana also under his authority, and after 
conquering the East was satrap of Babylonia no longer, but 
King. From 312 for 175 years Babylonia and Susiana were 
under the house of Seleucus. We still have only fragmentary 
information of the Hellenic rule in this quarter. 

Babylonia and Susiana^ continued to be two satrapies. 

1 Strabo xvi. 739. 2 strabo xvi. 739 ; Plin. N.H. vi. § 123. 

» Schrader, Zeitschr. d. deut. inorg. Gescll. xxiii. (1869), p. 371 ; Noldeke, 
Die semit. Sprachen, p. 41 f. ; Gutbrod, Zeitschr./. Assyr. vi. (1891), p. 26. 
■• Curt. V. 1, 6 ; Plutarch, Apoplith. Zip^ov, 2. ^ See Appendix P. 


The extent of Babylonia is, so far as I know, quite uncertain. 
In the district between the rivers it was, of course, divided 
from Mesopotamia by the desert, and the actual frontier was 
perhaps the Median Wall. But on the east of the Tigris lay 
a long strip of land from Susiana in the south to Armenia in 
the north — the country of the Assyrians — and it is nowhere 
said in our authorities under what government it was placed. 
From the fact, however, that Babylonia as a geographical term 
is sometimes found to include this country, it may be inferred 
as probable that the satrap of Babylonia had under him Assyria 
east of the Tigris as well.^ This strip of land is sometimes 
called Parapotamia, and it had perhaps by 218 a separate 
strategos from Babylonia.- 

To the south of Babylonia the region next to the sea 
appears to have been detached before the time of Antiochus 
III as a separate province, called after the " Eed Sea " {i.e. the 
Persian Gulf).^ This seems to be identical with the region 
which we find later called Mesene (in Syriac Maisan).* 

There was one respect in which Seleucid rule left a 
conspicuous and lasting impress upon the country — the 
destruction of Babylon. Sennacherib had razed it to the 
soil, and it had risen again to new glory. Cyrus and 
Alexander had conquered it, and it was still the capital of 
the world. But Seleucus Nicator brought its doom upon 
Babylon at last. It had subsisted, we have seen, through 
all changes of empire owing to a prerogative which was 
founded upon natural conditions. But the prerogative 
belonged to the land rather than the particular city. It 
was a natural necessity that there should be in this alluvial 
region a great centre of human life, and if Babylon were 
merely dispersed, as by Sennacherib, the human swarm again 

' In Strabo xvi. 745 Adiabene is r^s Ba^uXwytas ixepos. See Pauly- Wissowa, 
art. "Babylonia." 

'■^ Polyb. V. 69, 5 ; cf. 48, 16. There is some doubt, owing to the suspicion 
of a confusion in the latter passage, and to the fact that the name of Parapotamia 
was applied to other districts, Strabo xvi. 753. 

^ Hvdiabtjv Tov TTii 'Epudpds GaXdfffijs {^irapxov), Polyb. v. 46, 7 ; cf. 48, 13 ; 
54, 12. 

* Numenium ab Antioclio rege Mesenae propositum, Plin. vi. § 152. See 
Saint Martin, Reclierches sur Vhistoire et la giographie de la Mesene et de la 
Characine (1838) ; E. Schwartz in Kern's Inschrift. v. Magnesia (1900), p. 171. 


gathered. There was only one way by which Babylon could 
really be undone — by the creation of another centre. This 
was what Seleucus did. Forty miles north of Babylon, on the 
Tigris, about fifteen miles below Baghdad, Seleucus marked the 
foundations of a new city, Seleucia-on-the-Tigris. It was a 
favourable position for commanding the traffic of both rivers, 
for it was here that the space between the rivers narrows to 
twenty -five miles. It was a better "focus of continental 
trade " than a city on the Euphrates.^ From this moment 
Babylon was doomed. 

The legend of the founding of Seleucia, as narrated by 
Appian,^ represents the wise men of Babylon as being conscious 
of all that the marking out of the new walls meant for them. 
When they were required by King Seleucus to fix the lucky 
day and hour for beginning to build, they purposely gave 
him a wrong time. Only when the lucky moment came, 
a sudden inspiration thrilled through the Greek and Mace- 
donian troops, so that with one accord and in disregard of 
the royal heralds they flung themselves upon the work. 
Then the wise men saw the finger of God. " King, 
there is neither man nor city that can change the thing 
decreed. Even as men, cities have their hour and their 
appointed end." 

Seleucia, chosen for the capital of the eastern half of the 
Empire, grew apace. It was soon what Babylon had been, 
one of the largest cities of the world. The estimate of its free 
population, preserved in Pliny, made how soon after its found- 
ing we do not know, is 600,000.^ Elements from all quarters 
must have entered into the human mass which jostled in its 
streets. Its prevailing tone, no doubt, was Greek ; in later 
times, under barbarian rule, it prided itself on keeping the 
Hellenic tradition.* But the native population of old Babylon, 
no doubt, were driven or drifted into the new city." In a way, 
therefore, what Seleucus did was less to destroy Babylon than 
transfer it to another site. It was usual, as Strabo observes, to 

1 Hogarth, The Nearer East (1902), p. 261. 

2 Syr. 58. =* Pliii. vi. § 122. 

^ "Neque in barbarum corrupta, scd conditoris Seleuci retineiis," Tac. 
Ann. vi. 42. " Pans. i. 16, 3. 


describe a man of Seleucia as a " Babylonian." ^ Perhaps no 
city has left so little memory of itself in proportion to its size 
and consequence as Seleucia. Babylon and Baghdad are both 
familiar names to our ears with great associations, but to how 
many people does Seleucia mean anything ? So little trace 
is left of those great multitudes, akin in civilization to 
ourselves, who for centuries lived and worked beside the 

As to the political constitution of Seleucia, some people 
called Adeiganes are mentioned, who are taken to be a 
magisterial body of some sort. If so, it is significant that 
their title is not Greek.^ But Seleucia, as a royal capital, had 
its autonomy openly curtailed by its being put under an 
epistates,^ and watched by a garrison. The strategos of the 
province (Babylonia) sometimes holds the office of epistates of 
the city as well. Democrates the son of Byttacus is strategos, 
epistates of the city, and commander of the garrison all at once. 
But the inscription which mentions him proves at any rate 
that Seleucia could, as a city, pass honorary decrees.^ 

^ Strabo xvi. 743. It seems that a similar usage is found under the 
Sassanians : by "Babylon" was understood Ctesiphon, Winckler, AUor. Forsch. 
2te Reihe, iii. p. 529. 

^ "Winckler, AUor. Forsch. 2te Reihe, iii. (1901), p. 509, should be consulted. 
With much that appears to me doubtful conjecture, it is made probable that 
Opis, the great town on the lower Tigris in Assyrian and Persian days, was near 
the site of Seleucia, so that the new foundation of Seleucus absorbed this old 
city as well as Babylon. 

^ Polyb. V. 54, 10. A suggested derivation is from the Aramaic din with the 
article prefixed (Pauly-Wissowa), or the word is explained as equivalent to the 
Persian ^^dihkane " (Saint Martin). But the single reference to them in Polj'bius 
does not make it certain that they were magistrates at all ; one might equally 
conclude from that passage that they were a political party. 
* Polyb. V. 48, 12. 
5 'H 7r6\ts 

ArifxoKpa.Tr]v ^vrraKOv 
Tov (TTpaTTjybv Kal iTncrTo.- 
rrjv TTjs TriXews, rerayijA- 
vov 5i Kal iirl tup a.Kpo- 
(pvXaKluv KaXoKayadiai 


HaussouUier, Eev. d. Philol. xxiv. (1900), p. 332. [It is to be noticed that 
U. KiJhler questions the Babylonian origin of this inscription. He thinks that 
it was put up by Antioch-ou-the-Orontes under Antiochus IV, ^' Zwei Inschriften 
aus der Zeil Antiochos IF," reprinted from Sitzungsb. Berl. 1900.] 


And while Seleucia grew, the old Babylon decayed. The 
famous walls, slowly crumbling, enclosed deserted, crumbling 
streets. Only in the midst of the desolation the huge temples 
still rose, and societies of priests clustered about them, 
performing the ancient rites and cultivating the traditional 
wisdom.^ The policy of Alexander in honouring the gods of 
the nations was followed by Seleucus and his house. In 
March 268 Antiochus I laid the foundation for the rebuilding 
of the temple of Nebo at Borsippa. His inscription proclaims : 
" I am Antiochus, the Great King, the Mighty King, the King 
of the armies, the King of Babylon, the King of the lands, the 
restorer of the E-sagila and E-zida, the princely son of Seleucus, 
the Macedonian King, the King of Babylon." ^ 

It was not Seleucia only which displayed in this quarter 
the colonizing activity of the new rulers. There were the 
Alexandrias founded by Alexander near the coast {i.e. in 
Mesene). There was an Apamea also in Mesene.^ The 
Assyrian country east of the Tigris got its complement of new 
foundations. Opposite Seleucia was Ctesiphon, under the 
Seleucid kings apparently only a place of cantonments,* but 
destined to be refounded by the Arsacids as their chief city. 
Sittace is described by Pliny as of Greek origin, but we hear 
of Sittace in Xenophon as a great city,^ so that it was only a 
case of Hellenization. In the same region as Sittace (Sittacene) 
was an Antioch and an Apamea," ApoUonia, Artemita, and 
perhaps a Laodicea.''' A Seleucia-on-Hedyphon,^ a Seleucia-on- 
the-Eed-Sea, and a Seleucia-on-the-Eulaeus ^ are also mentioned. 

1 Strabo xvi. 739 ; Paus. i. 16, 3 ; viii. 33, 3. 

2 Keilscriftl. BibliotJi. iii. 2, 136 f. 

3 Droysen ii. p. 745 ; Pauly-Wissowa, i. p. 2664 ; Schwartz in Kern's /7i5cAr. 
V. Magnesia, p. 171. * Polyb. v. 45, 4. 

5 Plin. vi. § 132 ; Xen. Aimh. ii. 4, 13. 

6 Plin. vi. § 132 ; Schwartz, loc. cit. 

^ The region was sometimes called Apollouiatis instead of Sittacene, Strabo 
XV. 732 ; Polyb. v. 43 f. ; Isidore, 2. This Apollonia is mentioned in Steph. 
Byz., and is perhaps intended in App. Syr. 57. Artemita, which took the place 
of an old native town, Chalasar, seems to have become the chief city of the 
district, Strabo xi. 519 ; xvi, 744 ; Plin. vi. § 117. 

8 Strabo xvi. 744 ; Plin. vi. § 135. 

^ Kern, Iiischr. v. Mayncsia, No. 61. Are these two last Selcucias the 
Alexandrias renamed ? 


The Greeks of Babylonia seem to have contributed their 
proportion of great names to Hellenic literature and science. 
Diogenes of Seleucia, called "the Babylonian " (about 243-155) 
listened to Chrysippus, and became in time head of the Stoic 
school.^ Apollodorus of Artemita was in Strabo's time the great 
authority for Parthian history.^ But what is above all interesting 
is to see the ancient Babylonian mind caught in the movement 
of new ideas and exercising itself in the field of Hellenic culture. 
Berosus, the priest of Bel, aspires to the distinction of a Greek 
historian, and writes the fables and the history of his race for 
these Western people to read, encouraged by the grace of King 
Antiochus I. From the work of Berosus almost all that was 
known of Babylonian history, till the inscriptions were found 
and deciphered, was ultimately derived.^ There is another 
figure of peculiar interest in this connexion. A native of 
lower Babylonia, of the region near the sea, he is drawn to the 
great centre of Seleucia, takes the Macedonian name Seleucus, 
and goes deep into the mathematical science of the Greeks. 
His writings were given to the world about the middle of the 
second century B.C. ; they were still known to Strabo and 
Plutarch. They seem to have been indeed of a high scientific 
order. Not only did he advance true views about tides, but 
he set about proving that the earth and the planets really go 
about the sun. The Babylonian, quickened by contact with 
Hellenism, anticipates Copernicus.'* 

While the Babylonians were drawn to the light of 
Hellenism, the Greeks on their part were sensible of that 
fascination which the darkness of the ancient East has often 
had for the children of light. Alexander paid attention to the 
counsels of Babylonian magic ; so did his successors. When 
Alexander fell ill, a number of the Macedonian chiefs, among 
them Seleucus, consulted a Babylonian oracle." Antigonus 
changes his mind at once on a warning from the " Chaldaeans." ^ 
Seleucus, as we saw, is represented by the legend as applying 
to the Babylonian wise men to fix the lucky hour for his city's 
foundation. Throughout the later epoch of classical paganism 

' Susemilil, Gench. d. griech. Lit. i. p. 82. 

- Suscmihl, ii. p. 385. ■' Ibid. i. p. 605. 

* Ibid. i. i>. 763. '' Ait. Anab. vii. 26. '^ Diod. xix. 65, 7. 


the roving Babylonian enjoyed great prestige as a diviner. 
Such men were found, no doubt, in all the great Greek cities, 
muttering strange words and magical formulae under the 
patronage of rich women, very much as the Indian guru 
may get a circle of curious listeners in the drawing-rooms of 
Europe and America to-day. 





The plains of the Euphrates and Tigris are bounded on the 
east by the long mountain walls which, one behind the other, 
fence the tableland of Iran. This name, of course, belongs to 
an ethnological, rather than a physical, demarcation of the earth 
— the country possessed by Iranian man. And in this sense 
Iran embraces more than the tableland ; it includes the 
mountainous country which forms a bridge between the 
tableland and the Pamir ; it includes also the regions to the Jj 
north of the bridge as far as the Jaxartes (Syr-daria); to use 
modern political divisions, it includes, besides the kingdom of 
I'ersia, which coincides with the tableland, the principalities of 
Afghanistan and Bokhara. Within this region, in the dim 
centuries which precede recorded time, a peculiar national 
type had shaped itself as distinctive as that of the kindred 
Indians farther east, or as that of the Semitic kingdoms on the 
west. Into this old Iran, when the tribal organization of 
society had not yet been overlaid by an imperial system after 
the Assyrian model, we can get barely a glimpse. The Greek 
historians and Old Testament writers, to whom well-nigh 
everything we know of the Median and Persian Empires 
is due, show us almost exclusively the Iranian monarch 
in his relation to the foreign peoples dwelling west of 
Iran, his subjects, his enemies, or his allies ; they show 
us the Achaemenian court established for the most part 
outside Iran on the ground of those older monarchies 
which it imitated, in Babylon, or in Susa ; beyond the 
court, into Iran itself, into the land and the life, in which 


IRAN 259 

the Achaemenian house had its roots, they give us little 

The Iranian people, before Deioces ^ the Mede built an 
Empire, were split into a number of small princedoms and 
clan chieftainships. Their necks had not been bent under the 
yoke of a Great King. They stood in very much the same 
stage of social development as Macedonia up to the days of 
Philip, or as the mediaeval princedoms of Europe. We see in 
all of these an aristocracy of great houses, of chiefs ruling by 
virtue of blood and inherited authority in the tribe, the clan, or 
the family."^ The typical Persian nobleman was known for his 
magnificent airs. His manner of life was very like that of his 
Macedonian counterpart. He had the same passion for dogs 
and horses, for hunting and the profession of arms. He had 
the same love of wine and night-long wassails, although he 
combined this with a great capacity for abstinence, where need 
was, in forced marches through the starved regions of Iran.^ 
Lying was the cardinal sin, and the chaffering of the market- 
place he held a thing with which only lower breeds of men 
would have to do.* But to till the ground in ancestral fashion 
and tend flocks and herds was labour honourable and well- 
pleasing to God.^ 

None of these qualities are, however, very distinctive. 
Most warlike aristocracies are proud in bearing, devoted to 
sport and good company, and contemptuous of trade. To find 
the distinctive expression of the old Iranian spirit we must 
turn to the Zoroastrian religion. It is certainly impossible to 
determine how far the actual religion of Achaemenian days 
conformed to the true Zoroastrian type. The royal houses of 
Media and Persia, as we can gather from some of the proper 
names in use, from the fact that the Achaemenian kings 
worship Ahuramazda as the One Creator, were professed 
Zoroastrians. But certain salient differences appear between 
their practice and what was, later on at any rate, held orthodox 
— their custom of burial, for instance. In the worship of the 

^ Dayaukku is not a proper name, but =" lord of the distriet (Uaugraf)," 
Tiele. - Spiegel, Eranischc Alt. ii. p. 237 f. 

» Xen. Cyrop. viii. 8, 11. ■» Hdt. i. 153. 

^ Justi, in Geiger's Gruiulriss der iran. Philol. vol. ii. p. 395 f. 


clan deities we may see a survival of old pre-Zoroastrian 
heathenism, in the cult of Anahita the adulteration of the 
Faith through foreign influences. But even if we cannot infer 
that this or that prescript of Zoroastrianism was observed in 
the Persia of Darius Codomannus, the Avesta sheds a flood 
of light on the fundamental religious conceptions, on the 
peculiar religious temperament of old Iran. And we are led, 
I think, to place it high in the scale. The earliest form of 
Zoroastrianism to which we can get back is practically 
monotheistic. And not only is God one God — the Egyptians 
and Indians spoke sometimes of the One in a pantheistic sense 
— Ahuramazda is a Person, a strongly moral Person. He 
differs altogether from the old non-moral nature gods whom 
even the ordinary Greek still worshipped, and equally so from 
the non-moral abstractions into which the old nature -gods 
became resolved by the speculative thought of Greek and 
Indian philosophers. And with such a God, the attitude of 
the Iranian to the world and its ways formed a strange 
contrast to that which we loosely talk of as " Oriental," to the 
attitude of his Indian kinsman, for instance. The material 
world was not a vain process, a burden from which the wise 
man would, as far as possible, withdraw himself; it was that 
which Ahuramazda created good, though the wicked spirits 
were now doing their best to spoil it. We speak of the 
" brooding East " ; the religion of Zarathushtra was above all 
things a religion of honest work. Its supreme object was that 
" the Cow " (i.e. agriculture generally) should no longer, through 
the craft of lying spirits, suffer neglect. It is true that the 
piety required by Ahuramazda was to some extent narrow and 
formal, that no voice in old Iran proclaimed, " Bring no more 
vain oblations ; incense is an abomination unto me ; your new 
moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth." But it is 
also true that in the Zoroastrian conception of God and His 
service we, who have derived our thoughts of God from 
Jerusalem, find something strangely responsive.^ 

Two centuries of empire made indeed a great difference in 
the aristocracy of Iran. The Persian nobles who fought against 
Alexander were very unlike the rude highland chiefs who had 

' Tiele, Geschichtc der Religion im AUertum (Gotha, 1895), vol. ii. 

IRAN 261 

gathered round the standard of Cyrus. The good things of 
the world, the riches and refinements of great industrial cities, 
the precious wares of India and Ionia, had not been laid open 
to their fathers in vain. Even in the time of Cyrus the 
Persians had discarded their primitive kilts for flowing robes, 
such as the Medes had already borrowed from Assyria/ for the 
purples of Tyre, and the rainbow embroideries of Babylon. 
Their inbred passion for carousing and hunting was gratified 
in artificial modes on a magnificent scale. A Persian banquet 
became to the Greeks the type of extravagant luxury. All 
Asia was ransacked to furnish the table of the Great King.^ 
Armies of cooks, confectioners, and butlers waited on a Persian 
nobleman,^ His banqueting hall must be richly hung, and 
blaze with gold and silver plate.* The couches must be over- 
laid with gold and spread with costly fabrics. In fact, the art 
of spreading couches was brought to such nice perfection that 
to satisfy the Persian sense required a special training, and 
when the King made a present of valuable carpets to Greek 
visitors, the couch -spreader was an indispensable adjunct.^ 
So too with the Persian love of hunting. Huge parks were 
now enclosed, stocked with all manner of game, for his diver- 
sion — a declension, it seemed to the fine instinct of the 
sportsman Xenophon, from the true spirit of the field, " like 
slaying beasts chained up." ® Horse-breeding was passionately 
studied, and horses, in the estimation of a Persian, among the 
most honoiirable presents he could give or receive.'^ The Indian 
hounds kept, in the time of Herodotus, by the satrap of 
Babylon were so numerous that their maintenance was the 
sole charge laid upon four substantial villages.^ 

And yet, sumptuous as the Iranian nobility had grown in 
its style of living, much of the old spirit survived. There 
was still a social code which prompted the Persian baron 
to adventure himself hardily in battle and to close with 
great beasts. The fresher spirits of the Greek world, 


^ Xen. Cyrop. viii. 1, 40 ; 3, 1 ; Diod. ii. 6, 6. 

■^ Xen. Ages. 9, 3 ; Strabo xv. 735. " Xeii. Cyrop. viii. 2, 5 f. 

" Xen. Cyrop. viii. 8, 15 f. ; Strabo xv. 734 ; Hdt. ix. 80. 

•'■' Plutarch, Pelop. 30 ; Artax. 22. 

^ Cyrop. i. 4, 11. ' Anab. i. 2, 27 ; Cyrop. viii. 2, 8. 

8 Hdt. i. 192. 


men like Xenophon and Alexander, found much in the 
better type of Persians to admire. There was indeed such a 
fundamental resemblance between the tastes and ideals of the 
Macedonian and Iranian aristocracy as to naturally create a 
kind of fellow-feeling. And the struggle which brought Mace- 
donian and Persian into close contact led, as we know, in the 
case of Alexander himself, and those of his entourage who were 
in sympathy with him, to a generous eagerness to make friends. 
It is no part of Alexander's policy in the latter years of his 
life to depose the Iranian race from its position as the ruling 
race of Asia. He aspired to make of Iranian and Macedonian 
and Hellene one people. Device after device is put forth in 
order to promote their fusion — intermarriage, association in 
the army, transportation in the mass. When his schemes are 
cut short by his death, the situation in Iran is one of counter- 
poise. Some of the satraps are natives, some are Macedonian. 
A Hellenic element has been introduced by the planting of 
new cities ; in the villages, no doubt, and along the country- 
side the authority of the old families is still cherished. 

The great geographical divisions into which Iran, according 
to the usage prevalent at the time of the Macedonian conquest, 
fell were twelve : two on the west and south-west of the central 
desert — (1) Media (Mada) and (2) Persis (Parsa, mod. Ears); 
two to the north and north-east of it, (3) Hyrcania (Varkana) 
and (4) Parthia (Parthava) ; on the east of the desert, adjoining 
the mountain country which connects Ir^n with Central Asia, 
came (5) Aria (Haraiva) and (6) Drangiana (Zaranka) ; the 
mountain-country itself fell into the two divisions of (7) Paro- 
panisidai on the north, including the Cophen (Kabul) valley, 
and (8) Arachosia on the south ; the region which sloped 
down, north of the Paropanisidai, to the Oxus formed (9) 
Bactria (Bakhtrish, mod. Balkh) ; the country between the Oxus 
and Jaxartes (10) Sogdiana (Suguda, mod. Sughd) ; and, lastly, 
along the south of the Iranian plateau lay (11) Gedrosia and 
(12) Carmania (mod. ICirman). The number of administrative 
provinces or satrapies which these twelve regions constituted 
varied naturally according to the convenience of the hour. 
At Alexander's death we can probably make out eight : Parthia 

IE AN 26 


and Hyrcania were under one satrap, so were Aria and 
Drangiana, Aracbosia and Gedrosia, Bactria and Sogdiana. 

Of the rule of Alexander's successors in this part of the 
world we know even less than of their rule in Syria. The 
native tradition, as it was gathered in later centuries under 
Mohammedan rule, had forgotten even the names of the kings 
who ruled Iran between Iskander and the Sassanians. We 
can discern the work of the Seleucid house only in the Greek 
cities which here also are shown us by the geographers. But 
we can gather further from the history that this Greek element 
was an extremely important political factor in Iran. 

Media, as has been said, was the most important of the Iranian 
provinces. Alexander had put in a native nobleman as satrap, 
controlling him by the presence of Macedonian commanders. 
At his death this arrangement was changed by the chiefs in 
Babylon. Media was now divided into two satrapies. The 
principal part of it, from Persis northward as far as the river 
Amardus (mod. Kizil Uzen), containing Ecbatana and Ehagae, its 
two most illustrious cities, was made over, as we saw, to Pithon 
the son of Crateuas. The northernmost part, the country 
at the corner of the Iranian plateau, about Lake Urumiya, 
was divided off as " Lesser Media " and left in the hands of 
Atropates, the satrap appointed by Alexander. 

Lesser Media is a lovely " Alpine '' land, belonging by 
its character to Armenia almost as much as to tlie Iranian 
plateau. By the action of the chiefs it was abandoned more 
or less to native government. Atropates was the father of a 
dynasty, and the country came to be called Atropatene after 
him, a name which still cleaves to it in the form Adharbaijan, 
although Atropates and his house have long been forgotten there. 
It is a holy land in Zoroastrian tradition. When Kai-Kliosru, 
the legend ran, destroyed an idol-temple in the land, the 
divine fire, Adar-Gushasp, played about his person — an occasion 
commemorated by the great temple of Adar-Gushasp upon Mount 
Asnavanta (mod. Savelan). There were other religious centres 
in the land, Vesaspe (mod. Ardebil), called after the heavenly 
Being worshipped there, and the great fire-temple, Adarakhsh, 
at Gazaca (mod. Takht-i-Sulaiman), the capital of Atropatene, 
and, according to one tradition, the birtliplace of Zoroaster. 


Whether this prestige of Atropatene is due to the dynasty of 
Atropates, or whether it is of earlier date, has not, as far as I 
know, been determined. 

In the other part of Media, " Greater Media," the work of 
Hellenization was prosecuted vigorously. The hills, indeed, 
were left to the warlike Kurdish tribes who inhabited them. 
It was, in fact, their neighbourhood which led Alexander and 
his successors to protect civilization in these parts by multi- 
plying new foundations, although the hill-tribes, it must be 
remembered, did not only appear to the kings as a menace, 
but as a valuable element to be incorporated in their own 
armies.^ The case of the Greek cities of Media shows with 
peculiar force how unsafe it is in this department to be guided 
by the fulness with which our fragmentary authorities inform 
us of any matter in estimating the real proportions of things. 
It is not possible to gather more than the names of one or two 
cities. And yet Polybius expressly tells us that " Media was 
covered with Greek cities after the plan prescribed by Alexander, 
to form a defence against the neighbouring barbarians." ^ 
Whether Ecbatana received a Greek colony is doubtful. 
Polybius makes it an exception, but he may mean no more 
than that it was not a neiv foundation of the Macedonians. 
Pliny says that " King Seleucus built it." ^ The magnificent 
cedar palace of the Achaemenians, covering over twenty-five 
acres with its colonnades, was left standing, and was an 
occasional residence of the Seleucid kings.* Ehagae (mod. 
Rhei), the older capital of Media, is distinctly said by Strabo 
to have been refounded by Seleucus Nicator as a Greek city, 
and given the name of Europus — his own birthplace.^ Appar- 

^ Just in the same way the Gauls in Asia Minor were regarded both as the 
most vakiable mercenaries and, when left to themselves, the greatest menace 
to order and civilization. But the free fighting tribes in Asia have always 
appeared in this double light to the rulers of the lands. It is exactly the same 
in the case of the tribes of the North-West frontier in India to-day. They 
enrol themselves under the British standards or raid the British dominions 
with equal readiness. 

2 Polyb. X. 27, 3. » Plin. vi. § 43. * Strabo xi. 524. 

'' Strabo xi. 524. Droysen (ii. p. 749) questions Strabo's identification of 
Rhagae, Europus, and Arsacia. The old Median city, the Greek, and the Parthian 
one may have been locally distinct and yet near enough to be sometimes regarded 
as one. 

lEAN 265 

ently near Ehagae was the Heraclea founded by Alexander, 
and restored by Antiochus (the First, presumably) with the 
new name or surname of Achais.^ We hear further of a 
Laodicea ^ and an Apamea Ehagiana.^ 

The course of things in the province which adjoined 
Media on the south-east, Persis, where lay the seats of 
that part of the Iranian race which had so long held the 
supremacy, and the royal burg in which the Achaemenian 
kings had been at home, is involved in complete darkness 
durinff the rule of the Seleucid house. That the national or 
tribal feeling was strong in these valleys we may see by the 
case of Peucestas, who found it good policy to adopt the guise 
of a Persian when satrap, and the bold declaration of the 
native nobleman in the council of Antigonus, that if Peucestas 
were deposed no other Macedonian governor would be 
accepted. And that this feeling continued under Seleucid 
dominion we may see by the fact that as soon as the authority 
of that house weakens, the country is found under the govern- 
ment of native princes. The work of the Seleucids can be 
discerned only in the frontier city of Laodicea, founded by 
Antiochus,* the Antioch-in-Persis of which we know by a 
decree which its citizens once passed in their elcklesiaj' the 
Stasis, " on a huge rock," which again is connected with the 
name of Antiochus I ^ and, if we can argue from its Greek 
name, Methone.^ At some time or other a revolt seems to 
have broken out among these soldier-colonists {kcltolkol) in 
Persis, like the revolt among the Bactrian Greeks after 
Alexander's death. The stratagem is described by which 
Oborzus, apparently a Persian employed by the Seleucid 
government, had 3000 of them put to the sword.^ 

On the north the Iranian plateau is fenced by the high 

1 Plin. vi. § 48 ; Solin. 48 ; Amni. Jlarc. xxiii. 6, 39. 

2 Strabo xi. 524 ; Steph. Byz. ; Eustath. ap. Dion. Perieg. 918. 

=' Plin. vi. § 43 ; Strabo xi. 524. "* Plin. vi. § 115. 

•^ Kern, Inschr. v. Magnesia, No. 61. " Steph. Byz. " Ihid. 

^ Polyaen. vii. 40. The only reason for putting this incident under the 
Seleucid kingdom is its resemblance to the preceding story of Siles and the 3000 
Persians. It may, however, refer to the time when native princes ruled in 
Persis, and it would be in favour of this supposition that the rebels are colonists 
and the suppressor of the revolt an Iranian. 


line of the Elbiirz range from the Caspian. Along the southern, 
that is, the interior, face of this range runs a narrow belt 
of habitable country which forms the connexion between 
Western and Eastern Iran. Here the province of Media 
adjoined Parthia, the country which included the easternmost 
part of the belt just named as well as the mountains which 
bend southwards in a sort of crescent from the Elburz to meet 
the mountains of Aria. It corresponded with the modern 
Khorassan, or the northern part of it. It is a country of 
which the greater part is barren — sterile ranges bordering the 
great desert, but with tracts here and there in the valleys of 
extreme fertility. Such was the region of Nisa — one of the 
places cited as especially blessed in the Zoroastrian scriptures, 
in which an Alexandropolis is mentioned by Pliny as having 
been founded by Alexander.^ Hecatompylus, the capital of 
the province, owed its name, according to Polybius,^ to the 
roads from all quarters which here converged ; in a land 
where the lines of communication are so restricted the centre 
of a road-system is all the more important. That such a point, 
therefore,^ should have been secured by the Macedonian kings 
is a matter of course. And indeed we find Hecatompylus 
reckoned among the foundations of Seleucus Nicator.* The 
only other Greek city in Parthia whose name has come down 
to us is Calliope, likewise founded, according to Appian, by 
the first Seleucus.'"' It must have been on the extreme west 
of the province, since it is said by Pliny to have been at one 
time a frontier fortress against the Medes.*^ 

Closely connected in the administrative system with 
Parthia was the country on the northern side of the Elburz 
range along the southern shore of the Caspian, Hyrcania (mod. 

1 Plin. vi. § 113. See Tomaschek {I'mdy- JVissowa, i. p. 1408). 

2 X. 28, 7. 

^ The modern Sliali-rud is supposed to correspond in site to Hecatompylus. 

* App. Syr. 57 ; cf. Curt. vi. 2, 15, " Hecatompylos condita a Graecis." 

^ App. Syr. 57 ; cf. Stepli. Byz. 

^ Plin. vi. 15, § 44. Droysen conjectures that this refers to the frontier 
between the Ar.'^acid kingdom and the realm of Atropates. It may equally refer 
to the older time of the Median Empire. That the Greek name Calliope was 
given because the original native name had a somewhat similar sound, as 
Brunnhofer asserts, is possible, but by no means "without any doubt" {Irdn 
und Turan, p. 41). 

IRAN 267 

Mdzanderan). Physically, no contrast could be greater than 
that between the regions to the north and those to the south 
of the Elburz. Instead of the arid terraces of the Parthian 
side, the Hyrcanian slopes, receiving moisture from the 
Caspian, are clothed with rank forest. The sea-board at their 
feet has an almost Italian character. The exuberant fertility 
of the country is described by Strabo.^ Its inhabitants were 
perhaps of another stock than the Iranians, and the hills were 
tenanted here, as elsewhere, by unruly tribes, Mardi and 
Tapyri. Several " considerable cities " (TroXet? d^LoXoyoc) are 
mentioned by Strabo as being in Hyrcania, and as the names 
are native, we may perhaps infer that the fertility of the 
country had favoured the growth of larger communities even 
before the Macedonian conquest. The chief place at the time 
of Alexander is Zadracarta (probably where the modern 
Asterabad stands). Polybius in the time of Antiochus III 
speaks of Sirynca as the seat of government (^aaiXeiov)^ 
and Strabo uses the same expression of Tape.^ Whether 
these are different names of the same place is impossible 
to say. Of Greek towns in this region, although such 
must needs have existed, in view of the country's richness 
and the interest taken by Seleucus and his son in the 
navigation of the Caspian, we have no names given us 
except that of Eumenea."* It is noticeable, however, that 
there was a community of resident Greeks at Sirynca 
in 209." 

Hyrcania and Parthia, by the system which obtained at 
the death of Alexander, were under a single satrap, a native, 
who was replaced by the Macedonian Philip in 321." This 
was the man whom Pithon killed in 318 in order to put in 
his own brother Eudamus. Eudamus was almost immediately 
ejected by the confederate satraps, and after the triumph of 
Antigonus in 316 the province seems to have been annexed 

1 xi. 508. 2 polyb. X. 31, 6. ■' Strabo xi. 508. 

•• Stepli. Byz. ^ See vol. ii. p. 20. 

6 Justin (xiii. 4, 23) says: " Parthos Philippus, Hyrcanos Phiataphernes 
(sortitur)." If this is not a mere confusion of the partition of Babylon with 
that of Triparadisus, it suggests that at the time of Philip's appointment the 
native satrap was allowed to retain Hyrcania, just as Atropates kept Lesser 
Media when the Greater Media passed to Pithon. 


to Bactria, and to have formed part of the governorship of 
Stasanor.^ A few years later it passed with the rest of the 
East to Seleucus. 

The eastern half of the Iranian upland consists, as we 
have said, not of a central desert surrounded by mountains, 
but of a mountain mass pushed out from Central Asia. The 
backbone of this mass is formed by the Paropanisus (Hindu- 
Kush), and round about it are the provinces fed by the rivers 
which it sends down. On the west of it, adjoining Parthia, 
was the province which drew its life and its name from the 
river Arius (mod. Hare-Eud), the province of Aria (old Pers. 
Haraiva).^ The name bears witness to the grateful contrast 
of its well-watered valleys with the neighbouring desolation of 
mountain and desert. It was a land of vineyards, among the 
six blessed regions of the Vendidad. Here Alexander began 
the work of colonization by planting an Alexandria, and the 
old capital Articoana was rebuilt in more splendid fashion by 
Antiochus I.^ From Alexandria-of-the-Arians two important 
roads diverged. One ran round the north side of the mountain 
mass to Bactria, the other went south to Drangiana, and thence 
reached India by way of Alexandria Arach5t6n (Kandahar).* 
Alexandria Arion was thus a station through which all traffic 
between Western Iran and the lands farther east must almost 

^ This seems to be the best interpretation of Justin xli. 4, 1. "Post 
mortem Alexaudri . . . nullo Macedonum dignante, Parthorum imperium 
Stagnori, externo socio, traditur." In xiii. 4, 23, professing to give the partition 
of Babylon, Justin says, according to our present text, " Sogdianos Sulceus 
Stagnor." Stasanor was of Soli in Cyprus (Strabo xiv. 683), and "Sulceus" 
should no doubt be "Soleus." He was transferred at Triparadisus from Aria 
to the governorship of Bactria and Sogdiana. By the partition of Babylon he 
had been left in command of Aria. Justin, confounding the two partitions, 
reduplicates Stasanor, giving him Aria under his proper name, and Sogdiana 
under the corruption "Stagnoi-." 

" It is perhaps unnecessary to say that the name of the province Aria has 
nothing to do with Arayana, mod. Iran, Greek 'Apiav-n, the name of the whole 
plateau. [To be strictly accurate, I should have written Iran.] 

^ Plin. vi. § 93. "Artacabene" is obviously only another way of Avriting 
the same Persian name which is represented by " Artacoana." That Pliny gives 
both as two distinct towns is nothing against this, since his perspicacity often 
does not reach to detecting identity under slight variations of form in his 
different authorities. A few lines below, for instance, we find Drangae and 
Zarangae mentioned separately. 

* Strabo xi. 514 ; xv. 723. 

lEAN 269 

necessarily pass, a knot where the great lateral lines of the 
world's communications were drawn together.^ 

Two other Greek cities are found in Aria bearing witness 
to the activity of the Seleucid government, Achaia, whose 
founder Achaeus ^ was no doubt the general and father-in-law 
of Seleucus II, or an elder Achaeus of the same family,^ and 
Sotira, called probably after Antiochus I Soter.^ The Charis 
mentioned by Appian ^ must also have been either in Parthia 
or here. 

Two regions geographically distinct from the valley of the 
Arius seem to have been included in the satrapy as it was 
marked out under Alexander and his successors. Somewhat 
east of the Arius, another river, the Margus (mod. Murghab), 
comes down from the mountains and flows out into the desert 
parallel with the Arius, where it meets with the like fate, 
perishing in the sand. But it does not disappear before it 
has created in mid-desert the oasis which the ancients called 
Margiana and the moderns call Merv. Under careful irrigation 
this spot was turned into a paradise. It also was among the 
blessed lands of the Vendidad. " Eeport affirms," said Strabo, 
" that vines are often found whose stock it takes two men to 
compass, with clusters two cubits long." ^ To balance its 
advantages, the oasis was by its position more than ordinarily 
exposed to be ravaged by the nomads of the desert. The 

1 Artacoana and Alexandria are obviously not identiccd in Pliny, or the 
passage of Strabo, where he writes TroXeu 5^ 'ApTa/cdT/ca /cot ' KKe^dvSpua koX 
' (xi. 516). But they may have been close together, perhaps on opposite 
banks of the river, and commonly spoken of together as Alexandria. It is 
otherwise difficult to see how it should come about that Alexandria should be 
the great place on the high-road, and yet Artacoana "multo pulchrius sicut 
antiquius " and of larger extent. It must be remembered that the question of the 
identity of a new city in the East with one it replaces is often an ambiguous one, 
since the new city may be even at a considerable distance from the old, and yet 
called by the same name. According to Tomaschek {Pauhj- Wissowa ' Artakoana ') 
Artacoana corresponded with the citadel of the modern Herat, and Alexandria 
with the lower town. ~ Strabo xi. 516. 

3 This city tends to prove the existence of an elder Achaeus, which there is 
reason on other grounds to suppose (see p. 202), since a Seleucid foundation in 
this region must have preceded the Parthian revolt (250). Of course, if Appian 
is right in assigning the foundation of Achaia to the time of Seleucus Nicator, 
the elder Achaeus is a necessity. 

* App. Syr. 57 ; Ptolem. vi. 17, 7 ; Amm. Marc, xxxiii. 6, 69. 

^ App. Syr. 57. " Strabo xi. 516. 


Alexandria placed here by Alexander was actually overwhelmed 
within a few years of its foundation.^ The city rose again 
under the hand of Antiochus I as an Antioch, "Antioch-in- 
the-waters," ^ standing among its network of canals. Its new 
founder took the precaution of surrounding the whole oasis 
with a wall, 1500 stadia long (about 173 miles).^ Thence- 
forward Merv, under various masters, Macedonian, Parthian, 
Mohammedan, maintained its contest with the children of the 
desert. These in the long run got the better of every wall. 
Century after century the swarms broke upon it, till at the 
coming of the Russians the other day it was found little 
better than a heap of desolations.* 

The other region attached to Aria lay to the south of it. 
The rivers on the southern slopes of the Afghan country tend 
south-westerly, and find their ultimate meeting -place in the 
swampy basin of Seistan, where they form a lake of varying 
extent. This lake, which is now called Hamun, was known 
to the old Iranians as Daraya, the " Sea," in the eastern 
dialect Zaraya, and the people who dwelt about it were called 
Daranka or Zaranka, the dialectical variation giving rise to 
the two Greek names of Drangai and Zarangai (in Herodotus 
Sapdyyee^;). The chief city of Drangiana became already 
under Alexander a Greek colony,^ with the name Prophthasia, 
which at once commemorated the discovery of the plot of 
Philotas and rendered something of the sound of the native 
name, written by Stephen of Byzantium as Phrada. It was 
the principal station on the road to India between Alexandria 
of the Arians (Herat), and Alexandria of the Arachosians 

Aria, together with Drangiana, and presumably Margiana, 
had at Alexander's death Stasanor, a Cypriot of Soli, for 
governor. By the partition of Triparadisus, when Stasanor 
was transferred to Bactria, his place in Aria was taken by 
another Cypriot, Stasander. This man appears among the con- 
federate satraps who were beaten by Antigonus in 316, and in 

^ Plin. vi. § 47. 

- 'Aj'Ti6xeia 7/ KaXovfi-^vrj ^vvdpos (MS. (Lfvdpos), Isidor. 14. •' Strabo xi. 516. 
^ There was perlia^js another Greek city, a Seleucia, higher up the Murghab, 
where it issues from the mountains. Droysen ii. p. 673. 

5 Plutarch, Be fort. Alex. 5. ^ Strabo xi. 514 ; xv. 723. 

lEAN 271 

the case of Aria, Aiitigonus was able after his victory to make 
a change of satrap in his own interest. The province, being 
next to Parthia on the main road east and west, was perhaps 
more accessible than Carmania and Bactria. Nominees of 
Antigonus, first Euitiis and then Euagoras,^ replaced Stasander. 
Whether Seleucus found Euagoras still installed in Alexandria- 
Arion when he brought the province under his authority we 
do not know. 

On the east of Drangiana came Arachosia. The Erymanthus 
(Haitumant, mod. Hilmend) perhaps constituted the frontier 
for part of its course.^ Arachosia, corresponding to the 
southern part of modern Afghanistan, is a land of mountain 
ranges running south-west from the watershed, which divides 
the tributaries of the Kabul and the Hilmend. On its eastern 
sides the valleys run steep down to the Indus. Its inhabitants, 
like their descendants, the Afghans of to-day, formed a con- 
necting link between the pure Iranians and the races of 
India.^ They called themselves, as the Afghans do now, 
Pakhtun (Pushtoo : UuKTve^, Herodotus). The Greek name 
Arachosia, in use after Alexander, was taken from the main 
eastern tributary of the Hilmend, the river Harahvati, which 
the Greeks called Arachotus (mod. Argandab). Here, too, the 
hand of Alexander was busy. Kandahar was once undoubtedly 
an Alexandria. Through Alexandria of the Arachosians, the 
capital of the province, went the great road to India.^ 

"We know of only one satrap of Arachosia between the 
death of Alexander and the rise of Seleucus, Sibyrtius. He 
was among the confederate satraps, but having conspired to 
supplant Eumenes, he was accused before the army and barely 
escaped with his life. Antigonus naturally looked upon him as 
an ally, and restored him to his province in 316. Megasthenes, 
the historian of India, had resided at the court of Sibyrtius 
before he was employed as the ambassador of King Seleucus 
to the Indian king.^ 

Not only Arachosia, but the country to the south as far 

1 Diod. xix. 48, 2. 

- It is assigned sometimes to Drangiana (Air. Anah. iv. 6, 6 ; of. iii. 27, 4 ; 
Ptol. vi. 19, 4), sometimes to Arachosia (Polyb. xi. 34). 
" They were called "White Iii'lians," Isid. 10. 
* See Appendix Q. ° Arr. Anab. v. 6, 1. 


as the sea, belonged to the province of Sibyrtius. This 
country consisted of Gcdrosia (Beluchistan) and the coast, 
inhabited by races different from those of the interior. The 
Iranian plateau falls to the sea in wastes of shifting sand. 
Although Gedrosia has its habitable valleys and its caravan 
routes, " in which one can always rely after a day's march, at 
least, on a well of brackish water and a little fodder for the 
camels,"^ in an area of 100,000 miles there are less than 
500,000 inhabitants. The prevalence of desert all along the 
sea- board from the Indus to the Persian Gulf diverted 
commerce to other roads. Gedrosia seems, therefore, to have 
been an unknown land to the Greeks before Alexander. 
Herodotus calls the people of this part of the world Parikanioi, 
a Greek form of the Persian term, which described them as 
" worshippers of the Pairika," the unclean spirits of the 
desert. After Alexander the Greeks called them Gedrosoi, 
a name of unknown origin and meaning. They were of 
another stock, probably, than the Iranians. The Beluchis, 
who now inhabit the land, do belong to the Iranian family, 
but they represent a drifting of the Iranian race eastwards in 
later centuries. There is, however, a people of darker skin, 
the Brahui, who live alongside of the Beluchis in the land, 
and these are supposed to be the remnant of the ancient 
Gedrosians. Their affinity is with the black Dravidian 
peoples of India. An extension of the Aryan civilization of 
India to this country in ancient times is indicated (if it is 
safe to build anything upon a proper name) by the name of 
the chief city of the Gedrosians, Pura, which seems to be 
good Sanskrit for " city." 

But whilst Gedrosia was of little consequence for land 
traffic, the coast formed part of the maritime high-road 
between India and the West. It was inhabited by different 
peoples again from the Gedrosians, Arbies and Oritae, belong- 
ing, like the Gedrosians, to the Indian group,^ and west of 
these, in what is now called the Mekran, people whom the 

^ Reclus, Oeograph. Univ. ix. p. 119. 

^ According to Arr. Iiid. 25, the dress and weapons of the Oritae were Indian, 
but their language aud customs not. Of course no very great weight can be 
attached to what the ancients state with regard to linguistic or ethnogiaphical 

IKAN 273 

Greeks described simply as Ichthyophagoi, Fish- eaters — a 
race of squalid beings living in huts by the shore and catching 
the fish in which that sea is peculiarly rich. The intense 
interest taken by Alexander in the sea-route to India could 
not fail to stir his activity in this region also as a city-builder. 
But here, too, the scattered notices of the ancients do not 
make clear how many cities were founded by Alexander and 
his captains, or even satisfy us to which of the landmarks of 
to-day the names they use refer. Eambacia, the principal 
village of the Oritae, was transformed into a city by Hephaestion 
on Alexander's direction, a city for which Alexander divined 
a great future ; ^ an Alexandria rose on the coast near a place 
of good harbourage ; ^ Nearchus founded a city at the mouth 
of the river Arbis ; ^ but whether all these passages as well 
as the statement of Curtius * refer to one city, or to several, 
is debatable.^ Distinct, at any rate, must be the Alexandria 
in Macarene (Mekrau), near the river Maxates (Mashkid).^ 

The mountain-mass of Afghanistan north of Arachosia is 
cloven from its centre down to the Indus by the valley of the 
river Kabul. This valley must always be important as the 
main way of entrance from the west into India, its door being 
familiar to English ears as the Khaibar pass. By it Alexander 
entered, and the highway of traffic under the Macedonian 
kings struck north from Kandahar (Alexandria) across the 
hills to Kabul, instead of following the directer, but more 
difficult tracks by the valleys of the Bolan or the Gunial.'^ 
From Kabul (the ancient name is written by the Greeks as 
Ortospana) a road ran down the valley to the Khaibar, Another 
great road entered the Kabul valley from the north, from Balkh, 
making by its junction with the Kandahar-Kabul-Khaibar road 
the " Three- ways from Bactra " (J] e/c BaKrpcov Tplo8o>i). The 
importance of holding strongly this country north of the Kabul 
valley, the Paropanisus (old Persian, Paruparanisaua ; mod. 

^ AiT. Anal. vi. 21. - Diod. xvii. 104, 8. 

^ This is following Detlefsen's text of Plin. vi. § 97, "Haec tamen 
digna meruoratu i^roduntur : Arbis (MSS. abhis or abies) oppidum a Nearcho 
conditum in navigatione et (MS. omit 'et' or read 'ea') flumeii Arbim (MSS. 
' nabrum ' or ' nabrim ') navium capax." 

* ix. 10, 7. •' Sec Appendix R. « Steph. Byz. 

7 Strabo xi. 514 ; xiv. 723. 



Hindu-Kush), with its passes commanding the communication 
between the Kabul valley aud Bactria, led to its being 
constituted a separate satrapy, described as that of the 
Faropanisidai} At the death of Alexander the satrap was 
Oxyartes, the father of Eoxane ; he continued to hold his 
place through the partitions both of Babylon and of Triparadisus, 
and was even unmolested by Antigouus in 316, although he 
had sent troops to the confederate army. It is after this 
that the cloud comes down upon the East, in which the 
conquests of Seleucus Nicator are involved. 

Here, too, as in Beluchistan, the people of Iranian stock 
(Afghans), who are the ruling race to-day, are late -comers. 
At the time of Alexander the population of the Kabul valley 
was Indian, Gandara ; the hills, of course, were then as now 
held by fierce fighting tribes, who gave Alexander considerable 
trouble on his way to India. It was their neighbourhood, 
like that of the Kurds in Media, which led presumably to the 
multiplication of new foundations, which we seem to discern 
in the Paropanisus. The chief of these, Alexandria-on-the- 
Caucasus,^ seems to have stood in one of the side valleys 
leading up from the Kabul to the passes into Bactria.^ In 
the old Buddhist books Alasanda is spoken of as the chief 
city of the Yonas (lonians, Greeks).* The other cities 
mentioned ^ are Cartana, afterwards called Tetragonis,^ Cadrusi,^ 
and Asterusia, a settlement of Cretans, called after the Cretan 

1 That the satrapy ot the Faropanisidai did not extend south of the Kabul, 
this river being apparently the frontier between it and Arachosia, is indicated by 
the expression of Arrian (Anab. iv. 22, 5) ; aarpaw-qv 5e "[vpidairriv KaricrTTja-e rrjs 
re xwpas rrjs IlapaTrafj.icradQiv Kal t^s dWrjs '4<rTe eirl rbu Kwcprjva woTap-ov. 

'^ The comyianions of Alexander identified the Hindu-Kush with the Caucasus. 

3 Fifty miles from Ortospana (Kabul) according to Plin. vi. § 61. There 
are no data to fix its site. The principal conjectures are Bamian (Ritter), the 
neighbourhood of Charikar and Ghorband (Wilson, Droysen, Kaerst), Parwfin 
(Tomaschek). Toraaschek {Pauly- Wissowa, i. p. 1389) seems to make a mistake 
in saying that Strabo puts Alexandria at the rpiodos. 

* Mahavan9a, chap. 29, p. 171. 

^ In Diod. xvii. 83 the readings vary between fiXXas 7r6Xeis and dWrji' n-iXt)/. 

" Plin. vi. § 92. Tomaschek (Pauly- TFissowa, i. p. 1389) conjectures that 
Gariana should be read for Gartuia, as a Gariana is nanjed in this region by the 
Arab geographers. 

' "Oppidum ab Alexandre conditum," Plin. ib. ^ Staph. Byz. 

IE AN 275 

North of the Hindu-Kiish lay the last region towards the 
wildernesses of Central Asia, in which the Iranian man had, 
till the comhig of the Greeks, borne rule. Beyond was the 
outer darkness of Turanian barbarism. So long as the great 
rivers, the Oxus (Amu-darya) and Jaxartes (Syr-darya), are 
accompanied by offshoots of the mountain mass whence they 
take their rise, the country about them can nourish a settled 
population. This land of hills between the sand-wastes on the 
west and the mountains on the east formed the two outlying 
provinces of Bactria and Sogdiana, Bactria being in fact the 
lower slopes of the Hindu-Kush towards the Oxus, and Sogdiana 
the country between the two rivers. 

In both these provinces the ruling race at any rate was 
Iranian. They formed not only a genuine part of Iran, but 
a most illustrious part. According to one view here were the 
oldest seats of the Iranian civilization. The Zoroastrian religion 
had perhaps its cradle in this region ; at any rate its strong- 
hold was here. Nowhere else did the Iranians offer so desperate 
a resistance to Alexander. Again and again cities like 
Cyrescheta on the Jaxartes rose in rebellion. Intersected, too, 
as the country was by spurs of the lofty ranges to the south 
and east, it furnished the great lords like Oxyartes with castles 
lodged high on precipitous crags where they could long defy 
the Macedonian. The two provinces were similar in their 
physical character and their population. In Sogdiana there 
seems, as one might expect to have been the case, some infusion 
of Turanian elements. Under the Achaemenian kings their 
governor was commonly a son of the Great King, or a prince 
of the blood-royal. Even so the great resources of the country 
and its outlying position had tempted the rulers of Bactria 
and Sogdiana to revolt from the central authority on almost 
every opportunity. The case was not altered when a Seleucid 
was substituted for an Achaemenian king. 

Bactria (the northern part of the principality of Afghanistan), 
although it contains some barren tracts, and the lowlands by 
the river have a bad name for malaria, is on the whole 
singularly favoured by nature. Strabo describes it as 
producing everything, except the olive, and quotes Apollodorus 
of Artemita, who called it the " pride of all Iran " (7rp6a-)(T]/j.a 


T?79 o-v/j,7rdar)<; 'Apiavr}^)} Its eastern end, the modern 
Badakshan, is rich in minerals, in rubies, and lapis lazuli. 
But its special fame has in all times rested upon its breed of 
horses. In the old Indian epics we hear of the " Turanian," 
(i.e. the Bactrian) steeds, and to-day the horses of Andkhoi are 
a name in Asia.^ The ancient capital Zariaspa itself recalls 
by its name (agpa, a horse) the prominent place of the horse 
in Bactrian life. And it was not only from its own soil that 
Bactria drew its wealth. It was well placed for commerce, one 
of the countries binding India to the West. For besides the 
road we have seen, skirting the southern side of the moun- 
tains of Afghanistan and reaching the Kabul valley by way 
of Kandahar, there was an alternative road from Alexandria- 
Arion (Herat) by way of Bactria and the passes of the 

The country on the other side of the Oxus, included under 
the name Sogdiana, is divided into three strips by the double 
range of mountains sent through it lengthwise from the mass 
of Central Asia. The southern strip slopes down to the Oxus, 
and coincides with the modern Bokhara, the northern to the 
Jaxartes, and between these lie the parallel ranges, making a 
sort of trough down which the river Polytimetus (mod. Zarafshan) 
flows toward the desert, where it disappears. This middle 
district, the valley of the Polytimetus, is the most fertile of 
the province. Here was the capital Maracanda, destined, as 
Samarkand, to bear the finest flower of Mohammedan learning. 

In these two provinces, so important from their resources 
and their character as frontier provinces against the Scythians, 
and yet so difficult to hold because of their remoteness and 
the proud spirit of their inhabitants, Alexander established 
masses of Greeks. Strabo * gives the number of cities as eight, 
Justin ^ as twelve. But the most strikino- figures are those of 
the army formed by these colonists, when after Alexander's 
death they attempted to return — more than 20,000 infantry 
and 3000 horse.'' The names of most of the new cities are 

1 Strabo xi. 516. 

- Five hundred horses are included in the annual tribute sent to the Amir of 
Afghanistan from Badakshan. 

3 Strabo xi. 514 ; xv. 723. ■> xi. 517. =* xii. 5, 13. 

" Died, xviii. 7, 2. 

lEAN 277 

no longer recoverable. "We know of an Alexandria Eschate on 
the Jaxartes (mod. Khojend) looking across the river into the 
illimitable wilderness ^ — the last outlying station of Hellenism, 
in whose market-place, in the centuries after Alexander, the 
Greek trader from the West saw the Indian caravans which had 
come across the snowy ridges of the Tian-shan mountains, 
bringing the new substance of silk and stories of the great 
cities of the Silk-people, which lay in some distant world far 
away to the east. We hear also of an Alexandria Oxiana," of 
an Alexandria-by-Bactra (Kara BaKrpa),^ of perhaps another 
Alexandria Eschate on the upper Oxus towards the Pamir,"* 
and of an Antioch in Scythia.^ Lastly, the capital of the 
southern province, Zariaspa, or, as the Glreeks called it, Bactra, 
was in all probability occupied by Greek colonists even before 
a separate Greek kingdom came to exist in this quarter, when 
indeed Bactra was a royal capital,*^ fortified so strongly as 
to make its siege by Antiochus III one of the great sieges of 
the age.'^ 

At the death of Alexander a certain PhiKp is over both 
Bactria and Sogdiana. The experiment of leaving the farther 
province under a native satrap had not succeeded, and since 
the first revolt of the Greek colonists in 325 Philip had 
governed both provinces. By the partition of Triparadisus 
(321), Stasanor, the Cypriot of Soli, was transferred from Aria 
to Bactria and Sogdiana. It may well have been that a 
governor ivho vjcts a Greek, not a Macedonian, was more likely 
to manage the restive Greek colonists. In fact we are told 
expressly that in 316 Antigonus did not dare to disturb 
Stasanor ; " it was not easy to depose him by a letter, as he had 
dealt adroitly with the natives, and he would have many 
friends to fight in his cause." ^ It has been noticed ^ that the 
" one piece of information on record as to the way in which 

1 Arr. ATUib. \v. 1, 3 ; Plin. vi. § 49. Cf. Ptol. i. 11, 7. 

2 Ptol. vi. 12, 6. It is identified by Tomaschek {Pauly- Wissoim, i. p. 1389) 
with Beikend or Nakhsheb in Bokhara. ^ Steph. Byz. 

* Ptol. vi. 12, 6 ; viii. 23, 14. It is possible that Ptolemy means the city 
ordinarily called Alexandria Eschate on the Jaxartes. ' Steph. Byz. 

^ On the identity of Zariaspa and Bactra see Kaerst, Gesch. d. hellenist. 
Zeitalt. i. p. 345, note 4. " Polyb. xxix. 12, 8. 

8 Diod. xix. 48. » Gutschmid, Irdn, p. 23. 



Seleucus Nicator came into possession of the Upper Satrapies 
is that he subdued the Bactrians by force of arms." ^ 

We have still one province of Iran to speak of, that which 
lies on the south side of the plateau between Persis and 
Gedrosia, the province of Carmania, corresponding with the 
modem Kirman and Laristan. The description of Carmania 
closely coincides with that of Bactria. It is a land of hills 
and rivers. Here, too, everything prospered, according to 
Strabo, except the olive. It was famed for its noble trees, 
and a sort of vine with immense clusters. Here, too, was 
much mineral wealth, river -gold, and mines of silver, of 
copper, and vermilion." The division between Carmania and 
Persis was probably an artificial one ; the physical character 
of the two regions is similar ; the Carmanians did not 
differ sensibly from the Persians of Persis, except that they 
maintained less impaired the fighting quahties of their 
ancestors.^ The only Greek town which we know of for 
certain in Carmania is an Alexandria.* Harmuza, the port, 
whose name was to become famous in the markets of the 
world,-^ was perhaps a foundation of the Greeks ; at any rate 
it would seem that Nearchus found no settlement here in 
325.^ Carmania, as has been remarked, was not on the 
principal line of traffic between east and west, which went 
along the north of the Iranian plateau. It remained un- 
disturbed by the political convulsions which followed Alex- 
ander's death. The satrap appointed by Alexander in 325, 
Tlepolemus, continued to hold his position till the cloud comes 
down upon the East after the departure of Autigonus in 316. 
Tlepolemus had taken part, indeed, with Eumenes and the 
confederate satraps, but he also, like Stasanor, had rooted his 
position too well in his province for Antigonus to overthrow 
him by a letter from Persepolis. 

^ Principio Babylona cepit ; inde auctis ex victoria viribus Bactrianos 
expugnavit, Just. xv. 4, 11. 

- Strabo xv. 726. 

^ The name Carmania seems to have been coined by the Greeks from the name 
of the chief town, Carmana ; the native name for the Carmanians was Jutija. 

* Plin. vi. § 107. Identified by Tomaschek {Pauly- JVissoica, i. p. 1390) 
with the modern Gulashgird. 

^ As Hormuz. "The wealth of Ormus or ol Ind," Milton. " Arr. ItwL. 33. 

IE AN 2*79 

Such fragments can still be made out of that system of 
Greek cities with which Iran, like Syria and Babylonia, was 
overspread by Alexander and his first successors. Besides the 
name of Alexander himself, two others recur among the 
founders, those of Seleucus Nicator and his son, the first 
Antiochus. It may not be mere chance that while Alexander 
appears as founder over the whole tract, Seleucus and Antiochus 
(except in the case of Antioch in Scythia) do not leave traces 
east of Merv and Herat. That the further provinces were 
under their authority is of course unquestionable, Ijut their 
main activity as founders was perhaps in Media, Parthia, and 
Aria. It is impossible to draw a line between the foundations 
of Seleucus and those of Antiochus. The activity of Antiochus 
in Ir^n belonged, no doubt, in great measure to the time when 
he reigned in the East as viceroy, and his acts might be indiffer- 
ently ascribed to himself or to the father whom he represented. 

Of the elements of which the population of the new cities 
was composed we have some sparse indications. It is note- 
worthy that in some of the foundations of Alexander a body 
of natives is said to have been incorporated with those Greek 
or Macedonian soldiers who were to give the city its Hellenic 
character. In the case of Alexandria Eschate we are told 
that the population was composed (1) of a body of Greek 
mercenaries (settled, no doubt, by compulsion) ; (2) of all the 
natives who voluntarily associated themselves in the new city ; 
(3) of the Macedonian veterans who were past service.^ The 
population of the city or cities near Alexandria-on-the- Caucasus 
consisted of (1) 7000 natives; (2) 3000 of the camp followers, 
and (3) all the Greek mercenaries who wished to join.^ So 
too we are told of the city founded among the Oritae that a 
body of Arachosians were settled there.^ That the Hellenic 
character, however, continued in the case of these cities to be 
dominant may be inferred from the way in which Alexandria- 
on-tbe-Caucasus is referred to, as we saw in the Buddhist 
books, as a city of the lonians. The European colonists were, 
of course, either Macedonians or Greek mercenaries — the latter 
therefore, no doubt, of those Greek races in the main which 

1 Avr. Allah, iv. 4, 1. 
2 Diod. xvii. 83, 2. » Cuitiias ix. 10, 7. 



sent out most soldiers of fortune, Cretans, Arcadians, Aetolians, 
and so on, or men of the Thessalian horse,^ or, thirdly, they 
belonged to some of those less civilized nations of the Balkan 
peninsula, Thracians and Illyrians, which furnished contingents 
to the Macedonian king.^ It was not for the first time in 
these cities that a Greek population and a barbarian coalesced.^ 
An extremely interesting document in this connexion is 
the decree passed by Antioch-in-Persis, which a stone found in 
Asia Minor has preserved for us. It is dated by the eponymous 
magistrate of the year, who in this city is the priest of the 
deceased Seleucid kings and the reigning kings, Antiochus III 
and his son Antiochus, and shows the normal forms of the 
Greek city-state, a houle and an ekldesia, a ypa/xfiareixi t7^9 
/3ov\7]<;, who introduces the decree in the popular assembly, and 
TTpyrdvea, who put it to the vote. The occasion is a request 
sent by Magnesia-on-the-Meander to the cities of the eastern 
provinces to recognize as a festival of Panhellenic standing that 
celebrated by Magnesia in honour of Artemis Leucophryene. 
To this Antioch gives a cordial answer, and praises Magnesia 
for its zeal in Hellenism and its loyalty to the Seleucid King. 
It also recalls the old ties of kinship between the Greeks of 
Antioch-in-Persis and the Greeks of Magnesia, and in so doing 
throws light upon the procedure of colonization. The city of 
Antioch was called after Antiochus I Soter; whether it was 
his own foundation or an earlier colony renamed we do not 
know ; but Antiochus at any rate was concerned to increase it 
by a fresh body of colonists. To do this he makes an appeal 
to Magnesia-on-the-Meander (and others, presumably, of the 
Greek cities of the west) to send out some of their citizens. 
It is a matter which touches the glory of Hellenism, and the 
Magnesians respond by sending out men " adequate in number 
and distinguished for virtue," who go to reproduce the Hellenic 

^ A settlement of Cretans we saw in the Hindu- Kusli. The leader of the 
Greek insurgents in Bactria was an Aenianian, Diod. xviii. 7, 2. 

'■^ The Thracians of the eastern colonies (Gp^/ces e/c tQp dvu KaroiKiup) are 
mentioned, Diod. xix. 27, 5. 

^ See Strabo iii. 160. He is speaking of the city Emporium in Spain, where 
this had happened in the old days, riji xp^vw 5' els raiirb noXirevfia avvrfKdov /jlikt6v 
Tt ^K re jBap^dpuv Kal 'EWtivikwv vo/jlI/muv, Swep Kai iir' AWwy TTo'Wuy 


IRAN 281 

life among the hills of Iicxn.^ And locked within those hills, 
we cannot doubt, are many similar decrees, awaiting the modern 
European excavator to reveal the European civilization which 
once flourished there. 

Once, then, in its long past has Iran — including regions 
which to-day are a shut-up land to Europeans — been for a 
brief space under " western " rule. And it is striking to 
observe how the ancient world was as conscious of the essential 
difference between this rule and the spirit of Oriental govern- 
ment as we are in our own time. Then also it was the char- 
acteristic of the western rulers that they must be carrying 
things forward, curious to discover the nature and conditions 
of the country under their hands, restless to develop and 
improve. "Considerate management" (i'jrtfieXei.a) was what the 
countries got from them, and could not get from Asiatic kings. 
In speaking of Hyrcania and the Caspian, Strabo describes 
their undeveloped resources. The considerate management has 
here been lacking. " And the reason is that the rulers have 
here always been barbarian (i.e. non- Hellenic), Medians, 
Persians, and, last and worst of all, Parthians." In this long 
history the period of Macedonian rule was a momentary taste 
of better things, but too brief, and spoilt by the continual wars.- 

We may then probably think of the reigns of Seleucus 
Nicator and Antiochus Soter as a period when a new spirit of 
inquiry and enterprise was active in Iran. Obscured as those 
days are for us, we have seen some indications of that activity 
in the building of cities and such works as the great wall of 
Merv. We have further evidence of it in the work of explora- 
tion and research connected with the two names of Patrocles 
and Demodamas. Already under Alexander the best informa- 
tion as to the measurements and local conditions of the Empire 
had been collected by qualified agents and laid up in the royal 
archives. This valuable body of documents was in time handed 

^ Kern, Inschr. v. Magiusia, No. 61, 

'^ Strabo xi. 509. Cf. the expressions of Isocrates, anticipating the Macedonian 
conquest of the East, ^v yap ravra irpArrys, Hiravris cot x^P'" ^^ovjtv. ot fii: 
EWrjves vwkp uiv hv ev ira<rx<^<^i- ■ ■ ■, rb U twv &.\\o}v -yivos {i.e. the Orientals), 
ijv Sia <r^ ^ap^apLKTJs dejiroTeias diraWay^vres 'EXXtjuk^s iirifxtXeias rvx^xriy. 
Philip. 154, 


over by Xenocles, Alexander's treasurer, to Patrocles, the 
minister of Seleucus.^ Patrocles carried the work further. 
We have already seen this man taking a prominent part in 
the affairs of the kingdom. At one time he held a command 
in the eastern provinces," when he was commissioned to 
explore the coasts of the Caspian, and report on the possibility 
of a northern waterway to India. The development of trade- 
routes was a main concern of the Hellenic kings. Alexander 
had ordered the exploration of the Caspian shortly before his 
death with this end.^ An exploration, imperfect indeed and 
obviously provisional, was actually carried out by Patrocles. 
Patrocles seems to have made two voyages from some port at 
the south-west extremity of the sea, one in which he proceeded 
as far north as the mouth of the Cyrus (mod. Kur), another in 
which he sailed up the east side of the Caspian to some point 
impossible to determine with certainty. He embodied the 
result of these voyages in a book, a Periplus, which was 
thenceforward the standard authority for these regions. Strabo 
speaks of Patrocles with great respect, of his trustworthiness 
and knowledge of scientific geography, and contrasts his sober 
report with the fabulous stories of Megasthenes and Deimachus.* 
The curious thing is that this authority, so conscientious and 
intelligent, should have fixed for generations the error that the 
Caspian did communicate with the ocean, and that it was possible 
to sail that way to India.^ 

While Patrocles explored the Caspian, his contemporary, 
Demodamas of Miletus, was employed by Seleucus or Antiochus 
to investigate the course of the Jaxartes. As in the case of 

1 Strabo ii. 69. 

^ 6 tQv Tb-rriiiv rjyijcrdfji.ei'os to^Jtcov HarpoKXrjs, Strabo ii. 74. He is called 
"praefectus classis" in Plin. vi. § 58. 

3 Arr. Anab. vii. 16, 1. « gtrabo ii. 68, 70. 

5 Miiller, F.H.G. ii. p. 442 f. ; Neumann, Hermes xix. (1884), p. 165 f. ; 
Susemihl, Gesch. der griech. Lit. in d. Alex. i. p. 657 f. ; W. W. Tarn, Journ. of 
Hell. Stud. xxi. (1901), p. 10 f. The svibject of the voyages and theories of 
Patrocles will be found fully discussed in the learned and valuable article last 
mentioned. Mr. Tarn holds that Patrocles only asserted a connexion between 
the Caspian and the Aral, and that the geographers misunderstood him. In 
spite, however, of his arguments, it seems to me rash to correct the geographers 
in this way, seeing that they had the work of Patrocles before them, and we 
have not. 

IRAN 283 

the Caspian, commercial interests were no doubt largely the 
motive of the enterprise. The Jaxartes might be a waterway, 
connected with a landway from India across Central Asia. 
That India, at any rate, fell within the purview of Demodamas 
is suggested by the fact that the one express quotation from 
his writings refers to a town in India.^ By the side of the 
Jaxartes, on the edge of the Scythian waste, Demodamas erected 
altars to the Didymaean Apollo, the god of his home.^ 

Of a piece with this policy of discovering or opening trade- 
routes along the north of Iran is the intention which is 
ascribed to Seleucus Nicator at the end of his reign of making 
a canal between the Caspian and the Black Sea.^ It may well 
be ^ that the first voyage of Patrocles to the mouth of the Cyrus 
had relation to this scheme, and that it was his discoveries which 
showed its impracticability. But in fact it was not one scheme 
only, it was the whole system of policy, which collapsed with 
the Bactrian and Parthian revolts. The exploration of the 
Caspian was only begun by Patrocles ; had Seleucid rule lasted 
in these regions the work would surely have been completed, 
but the great Hellenic Empire was broken up before it could 
bring its vast designs to accomplishment. 

The danger from the unsettled peoples beyond the pale — 
this constituted the main preoccupation of civilized rule in Iran, 
just as in the West a similar danger was forced upon the 
attention of the Greek kings in the irruption of the Gauls. 
The danger in the East confronted the heirs of Seleucus in an 
ominous form when an independent dynasty established itself, 
defying their authority, in Parthia. We have very divergent 
statements as to the rise of this Parthian dynasty; when it 
became great in the world, its origins gathered round them a 

1 "AvTicraa, 7r6Xts . . . 'IvdiKijs, t)c dvaypdcpei ^i\wi> /cat Ayifiodd/ias 6 MiXt^o-ios, 
Steph. Byz. {F.H. G. ii. p. 444, frag. 2). 

2 Plin. vi. § 49. HaussouUier has recently published a Milesian inscription 
{Bevue de Philol. xxiv. 1900, p. 24.5), in which the proposer of the decree (a 
decree in honour of Antiochus during his father's lifetime) is Demodamas the 
son of Aristides. There can be little doubt that this is the explorer of the 

^ Plin. vi. § 31. The statement is given on the nutliority of the Eniperor 
Claudius ; it cannot be traced farther. 

^ As W. W. Tarn suggests in the article just cited. 



halo of mist. Its rise also proceeded gradually, by successive 
advances, and it was possible, no doubt, for different traditions 
to take different moments in this process as its true beginning. 
But certain facts stand out. It was not a revolt of the native 
Parthians. That province, consisting, as we saw, of sterile 
mountains, with a few fruitful valleys and plains, could not 
nourish a large population. Its inhabitants were homogeneous 
with the other peoples of Iran ; they are mentioned in the 
inscriptions of the Achaemenian kings as one of the peoples of 
the realm ; in the revolt they play, as far as our existing 
records show us, a merely passive part. The blow is struck 
by a tribe issued out of the dim wilderness to the north, who 
seize the Parthian country and reduce the natives to the 
position of serfs.^ It was no doubt by continual reinforcement 
from the north that the power of the invading tribe grew. ' It 
consisted of Parni, a division of the people whom the Greeks 
called Daae, and who ranged the steppes to the east of the 
Caspian. The Daae are described as a " Scythian " people, but 
this tells us nothing of their affinities, since the name Scythian 
was applied by the Glreeks to all the peoples of Eussia and 
Turan indiscriminately. When they entered the Parthian 
province and wrested it from the body of the Seleucid Empire, 
a separate Parthian dynasty may be said to begin, in the 
sense of a dynasty with its basis in that province, but that 
moment had been led up to both by events in Parthia and by 
the earlier history of the family which now came to rule there. 
Parthia itself had showed a tendency before the Scythian 
irruption to break away from the Empire ; at least something 
of the sort is to be inferred from the coins which Andragoras, 
the satrap, strikes in his own name.^ On the other hand the 
Scythian chief Arsaces ^ seems, before his invasion of Parthia 

' Just. xli. 2, 5 f. 

2 Niese ii. p. 141. Andragoras is a person who presents great difficulties. 
An Andragoras is said by Justin to have been made governor of Parthia by 
Alexander, and he is described as a "Persian noble" (xii. 4, 12). We hear no 
naore of this Andragoras. He appears neither in the partition of Babylon in 323, 
nor in the partition of Triparadisus. But the satrap of Parthia at the time of 
the Scythian invasion is called in Justin's account Andragoras (xli. 4, 7). 

^ The name is Iranian ; so, according to Gutschmid, is the name of the nation 
Daae and of its tribes, Parni, Xanthii, and Pissuri. We must, therefore, either 
infer n close kinship between those nomads and the settled Iranians, or suppose 

lEAN 285 

proper, to have established a petty sovereignty in the neigh- 
bouring region of Astabene, with his seat at a place called 
Asaak.^ The conquest of Parthia did not, apparently, take 
place till the battle of Ancyra (soon after 240) had crippled 
the Seleucid power in the West.'^ It was, however, an earlier 
moment in the history of the dynasty, perhaps that of the 
establishment of Arsaces at Asaak, or some victory won over 
the army of a satrap, that the later reckoning fixed upon as 
the birth-year of the Arsacid power.^ And this much is at 
any rate plain, that as the difficulties of the house of Seleucus 
in the West had not begun with the battle of Ancyra, but for 
the thirty years preceding it the wars with Egypt and the 
Gauls drained its strength, its hold upon the East had already 
begun to relax under Antiochus II, and that the earlier stages 
in the formation of the Arsacid power go back to his reign. 

It is these earlier stages which the later tradition wrapped 
in an atmosphere of romance, through which it is difficult to 
detect the truth of things. Beyond the Arsaces who con- 
quered Parthia looms the shadowy figure of another Arsaces, 
his brother, whose image, as that of the divine founder of the 
kingdom, all the Parthian drachmae bear;^ he sits, bow in 
hand, upon the omphalos, from which he has ousted the Seleucid 
Apollo. Only two years did this first Arsaces reign on the 
confines of the desert. He was succeeded by his brother, 
whose personal name was Teridates, but who assumed his 

that they had come under Iranian influence strongly enough for their nomen- 
clature to be affected. 

' Isidor. 11. 

2 " Hie (Arsaces) solitus latrociniis et rapto vivere, accepta opiuione Seleucum 
a Gallis in Asia victum, solutus regis metu, cum praedonum manu Parthos 
ingressus Andragoran oppressit sublatoque eo imperium gentis invasit," Just, 
xli. 4, 7. IlapdvaLOi. t^s dTrocrTda-ewy Tore fjp^av {i.e. the time of Seleucus II) wy 
Tera-payixivrj^ tijs tOjv XeXevKiSuiv dpxrjs, App. Syr. 65. 

^ The official era in the Arsacid kingdom dated from Olymp. 133, 1 (Eus. i. 
207 f. ; cf. G. Smith, Assyrian Discoveries, p. 389), i.e. 248-247 B.C. Justin 
gives another self- contradictory statement. "A cuius {i.e. Nicatoris Seleuci) 
pronepote Seleuco primum defecere primo Punico bello, L. Manlio Vulsone, M. 
Atilio Regulo consulibus." These are the consuls of the year 256-255 B.C., and 
Seleucus II did not come to the throne till 246. It is generally tliought that 
O. Atilio should be read for M. Atilio, which would make the year 250-249. 
This would agree with the date Olymp. 132, 3, given by Eus. Canon (Sehoene 
ii. p. 120). ^ Percy Gardner, Parthian Coinage, p. 18. 



brother's name, Arsaces, on his accession, this becoming thence- 
forth the royal name of all the dynasty. It was this second 
Arsaces, Teridates, who conquered Parthia soon after 240.^ 

It may, however, be questioned whether, in the case even 
of the first shadowy king, Arsaces was a personal name, and 
not rather adopted deliberately in order to affiliate the new 
dynasty to the old Achaemenian house. For Arsaces had been 
the name of Artaxerxes II (Mnemon) before his accession,^ and 
we are expressly told that the Arsacid dynasty drew their 
descent from " the Persian king Artaxerxes." ^ It was the 
same motive which made the court tradition give five com- 
panions to the brothers Arsaces and Teridates in their assault 
upon the Macedonian power,* their enterprise being thus 
assimilated to the overthrow of the False Smerdis by 
the Seven. 

The story of their rebellion, as we have it in a mutilated 
form, says that in the reign of Antiochus II they attacked 
Pherecles, the satrap appointed by the Seleucid government, 
because he had offered a gross insult to Teridates, the younger 
of the two brothers, and slew him. Of what province, however, 
Pherecles was satrap the abstract of Arrian given by Photius 
does not specify; we may presume he was really eparch or 
hyparch of the district in which Asaak was situated.^ That 
the establishment of the Scythian tribe in this region involved 
some collision with the Macedonian officers, especially if it 
maintained itself by marauding, is no doubt true. 

About the same time that the house of Arsaces emerged 
from the wilderness, the provinces of Bactria and Sogdiana 
ceased to obey the Seleucid King. We have already seen that 
the new colonies in this region, being mainly composed of 
Greeks, had shown themselves impatient of Macedonian rule, 
and a leader who could play upon this national feeling could 

' Air. Parth. frag. 1 {F.H.G. iii. p. 586 f.). 

'^ 6 5^ '^ip^7]s ' KpaUas irpbrepov iKoKeiro, Plutarch, Artox. 1. 

^ Syiicell. p. 539. Arrian, as represented by Photius, calls the Arsacids tov 
vlov 'ApcTCLKov rod ^piairlrov awbyovoi, which the state of our knowledge does not 
.xllow us to explain. * Arr. Parth. frag. 1. 

■' Syncellus, who also professes to be following Arrian, substitutes for Pherecles 
an Agathoclua, ewapxos rys llepalSos. He is jirobably more correct than Photius 
in the title; the province mentioned is, of course, absurd. 

IRAN 287 

make himself very strong. Diodotus the satrap, probably a 
Greek like his predecessor Stasanor and his successor Euthy- 
deraus, abjured allegiance to his Seleucid master and declared 
himself an independent king.^ 

We do not know whether the revolt of Diodotus preceded 
or followed the appearance of Ptolemy III in the eastern 
provinces/ which must have loosened the whole fabric of 
Seleucid government in that part of the world.^ Nor do we 
know what order of things Ptolemy left here on his retirement, 
except for the statement that he confided the government of 
the East to his general Xanthippus.* If his conquest consisted 
in little but his obtaining the recognition of his authority 
from the existing administrators of the country, the Seleucid 
authority, such as it was, would be quietly re-established so 
soon as the provincial magnates thought it advisable to regard 
Seleucus once more as their overlord. In this way the 
Egyptian conquest would be a mere transitory phase, which, 
except in weakening the power and prestige of the Seleucid 
court, would not permanently modify the situation. 

This situation, then, as it appears in the early years of 
Seleucus II, presents three more or less independent powers 
in the Ear East, that of Andragoras in Parthia, of Diodotus 
in Bactria, and of Arsaces in the region of Astabene. The 
relations of the three to each other cannot be distinctly made 
out. Avsaces seems to have been regarded by Diodotus as 
one would expect the Hellenic ruler of Bactria to regard the 
marauding chiefs of the wilderness. The fields and villages, 
no doubt, suffered. Tlie district of Astabene was perhaps one 
which had been attached to the Bactrian province, and was 
considered by Diodotus part of his legitimate domain. One 
account, Strabo tells us, spoke of Arsaces as " a Bactrian," 

^ Strabo xi. 515 {ol wepl EvdudrjpLov is a slip of the pi-n ; cF. tQv trfpi AioSotov 
a little farther on), Just. xli. 4, 5 ; Trog. ProL xli. 

2 See p. 186 f. 

^ It is Dot expressly said that Ptolemy himself went as far as Bactria, SUt^r) 
rhv YiV<ppaT7}v iroTaixov, Kal t])v 'Meaoirorafxiav Kai BafjvXwfiav Kal 'Zovcriai'qv Kal 
JlepaiSa ical MrjSiav i;ai Tr;y \oL7rr]v {y^f) irS.crai' ews 'BaKrptavrjs v<t> iavru) Troii)ffd/M(vo^ 
kt\. Michel, Xo. 1239. If Ptolemy only went personally as far as Selencia-on- 
the-Tigris, and there received acknowledgment of his authority from the satraps 
of the further provinces, the phraseology of the inscription would be justilied. 

* Jerome on Daniel 11. 



and asserted his attack on Parthia to have been due to the 
pressure of the power of Diodotus.^ The relations of Arsaces 
to Andragoras are still more problematical. On the one hand, 
Andragoras is spoken of as holding Parthia against Arsaces 
and his Scythians till he is swept away by their onset ; ^ on 
the other hand, Justin says elsewhere that from Andragoras, 
the satrap put over Parthia by Alexander, the " kings of the 
Parthians " professed to descend.^ 

The conquest of Parthia by Arsaces Teridates made the 
situation in the East far more grievous for the house of 
Seleucus. The province was of great importance as the link 
between western and eastern Iran, And if Andragoras had 
been semi-independent, the new ruler of the country was not 
only independent but aggressive, and already styled himself 
king. He had soon conquered, not only Parthia proper, but 
Hyrcania, so that his power reached from the interior desert 
to the Caspian. Seleucus Kallinikos had not long rallied in 
Syria the broken forces left him by the battle of Ancyra 
before he set out to win back the East. About this time 
Diodotus of Bactria died and was succeeded by his son 
Diodotus II. The Greek ruler of the lands by the Oxus had 
now to choose whether he would range himself with Seleucus 
or Arsaces. On either side there was danger : Seleucus would 
hardly allow a rebel to retain his authority, and the re- 
establishment of Seleucid rule must probably mean the dis- 
appearance of Diodotus ; on the other hand, by the Scythian 
occupation of Parthia, Bactrian Hellenism was cut off from 
connexion with the Hellenic powers of the West, and left 
isolated among barbarians. Arsaces feared that Diodotus 
would make his peace with the Seleucid Eliug, and that he 
would be attacked on both sides. The elder Diodotus had 

^ Strabo xi. 515. Syncellus himself is probably responsible for the confusion 
when he makes the first Arsaces and Teridates satraxis of Bactria, Syncell. p. 
539. That Arsaces was first known to the world as the ruler of a district in 
Bactria may be the truth behind these statements. 

2 Just. xli. 4, 7. 

^ xii. 4, 12. It is perhaps possible that the authority followed by Justin 
was speaking, not of the Arsacid dynasty, but of the semi-independent dynasty in 
Parthia which the Arsacid replaced. Justin, in his speaking of " the kings of 
the Parthians," must, of course, have understood the Arsacids. The coins which 
bear the name of Andragoras do not give him the title of king. 

IRAN 289 

been his enemy, but the accession of the son seems to have 
brought a change of policy. Diodotus II granted the new 
Scythian power a treaty which left Arsaces at rest as to his 
eastern frontier.^ 

Seleucus advanced. Before the disciplined armies of 
Macedonian Syria the barbarian chief thought it the better 
strategy to vanish into the desert out of which he came. He 
took refuge in the camping grounds of a tribe whose name is 
given as Apasiacae.-^ It was the eternal trick by which the 
arm of Oriental governments is evaded. Whether Seleucus 
plunged into the waste in pursuit of him we do not know. 
Some fighting between his army and the Scythian hordes took 
place, but it can hardly have been the desire of Arsaces to 
come to close quarters, unless he had got his pursuer in a 
tight place. In after times the anniversary of some encounter 
was celebrated in the Parthian kingdom as of the victory 
which had been " the beginning of Liberty." ^ Whether it 
was in reality a skirmish or a great battle we do not know. 
No decisive result had been obtained when troubles in the 
West compelled Seleucus to withdraw.* This was equivalent 
to complete failure. Diodotus, as far as we know, he never 

Immediately, of course, that Seleucus was gone, Arsaces 
reoccupied Parthia, and there was none now to hinder the 
consolidation of his power. He worked hard at putting the 
country into a thorough state of defence, organizing his rude 
Scythians as a regular army and fortifying strongholds. 
Among the latter Dara in the region of the Apaorteni is 
especially mentioned.^ Any new attempt to establish Seleucid 

^ Just. xli. 4, 9. It is to be noted that numismatists arc sceptical as to the 
existence of a second Diodotus. Only one portrait appears on the coins. But 
this does not seem to me very strong evidence. 

2 Sti-abo xi. 513. ' Just. xli. 4, 10. 

* These are ordinarily taken to be the insurrection in Syria fomented by 
Stratonice. Agatharchides ap. Joseph, c. Apion. i. § 206 = F.H.G. iii. p. 196. 
This is supposing that ij d-rrb Ba^vXQvos (TTpareia of that passage is the expedition 
of Seleucus against Arsaces. Justin (xli. 5, 1) says " Revocato deinde Seleuco 
novis motibus in Asiain" {i.e. Asia Minor), and would rather point to some 
developments in the fraternal war. 

'"' Just. xli. 5, 2. The name of this region is preserved in the town of 
Bavard in Khorassan, the original Iranian name being, according to Brunuhofer 
{Iran u. Tioran, p. 40), Ajjavarta or Apavorta. 



authority in the East was not likely to find the task any 
easier for the expedition of Seleucus Kallinikos. And with 
his retirement we leave Iran in obscurity till we follow 
Antiochus, the son of Seleucus, into the eastern provinces 
some twenty-five years later. 

It remains to ask what traces we have of the relations of 
the native Iranians to the Hellenic kings. The indications do 
not point to altogether friendly ones. In Alexander, as in 
the British rulers of India, the " western " spirit had to deal 
with practices which are abhorrent to it, and with a great 
desire in both cases to show extreme tolerance, there are 
certain limits beyond which the superior civilization has to 
repress by force. The British have abolished Sati (Suttee) ; 
Alexander prohibited the custom, which the extravagant form 
of Zoroastrianism followed in Bactria prescribed, of exposing 
persons at the point of death, while still alive, to the sacred 
dogs.^ It is perhaps due to this and similar actions on the part 
of the Greek rulers that we find Alexander appearing in the 
Zoroastrian tradition in a light which is strangely at variance 
with his main policy. Alexander, who was concerned above all 
things to patronize the national cults and conciliate the native 
priesthoods, here figures as the great enemy of the religion, 
the destroyer of the sacred books. 

Perhaps this conflict between Hellenic humanity and 
barbarian religion was confined to the east of Iran ; but in 
the west the memories of their former position must have 
worked in the hearts of Medes and Persians. Of actual 
revolts we are not told much. Thespias, the native nobleman, 
threatened Antigonus with one in Persis, under any other 
satrap than Peucestas.^ The revolt which broke out in Media 
after Pithon's removal, although led by the Macedonian and 
Greek adherents of Pithon and Eumenes, drew in a part of 
the natives and may have been supported by the national 
feeling. One, at any rate, of the leaders themselves was a 
native Mede.^ 

We are told definitely of one revolt among the Persians 
under the house of Seleucus. Siles, the officer representing 

1 Strabo xi. 517. " Diod. xix. 48, 5. ^ j^j^^, 47^ 

lEAN 291 

the Macedonian king (whether it was the first Seleucus or 
the second there is no indication, and does not much matter), 
enticed 3000 of them into a village called Ehanda among 
marshes, where he surrounded them with Macedonian and 
Thracian troops and made away with them all.^ 

On the other hand, numbers of Persians served both as 
administrators and soldiers under Seleucus and his successors. 
The satrap of Cilicia at the beginning of the reign of Seleucus 
Kallinikos is proved by his name Aribazus to have been an 
Iranian." Another Aribazus is the governor of Sardis under 
Achaeus.^ Oborzus, who crushes the revolt of katoikoi in 
Persis, is by his name a Persian.* The Smyrnaean inscription 
mentions " Omanes and the Persians under Omanes " among 
the troops stationed in the neighbourhood.^ A force com- 
manded by Antiochus I in Syria celebrates a Persian festival.^ 
There was a Zoroastrian temple on Mount Silpius at Antioch 
— a temple of the Eternal Pire.^ Considering that our whole 
knowledge of the organization of the Seleucid kingdom is 
derived from chance notices gathered here and there, such 
references as those above indicate a larger Iranian element 
than we can actually trace with our imperfect sources. These 
references are enough to prove that the policy of Alexander, 
which set Macedonian and Iranian side by side, was not alto- 
gether abandoned by those who inherited his throne. 

1 Polyaen. vii. 39. = See p. 185. 

^ See vol. ii. p. 7. * Polyaen. vii. 40. 

5 Michel, No. 19, I. 104. « Polyaen. iv. 15. ' Malalas, p. 38 ; cf. p. 119, 



The realm of Seleucus and his successors did not include the 
Indian provinces of Alexander's Empire ; but with the princes 
who ruled there they had to do as neighbours, and it is there- 
fore part of our business to inform ourselves of what was going 
on in this region in the century after Alexander's death. In 
doing so we enter a field which has a pecuHar interest for 

In the year 326 B.C. a glitter of strange spears, a mailed 
line of men, issued out of the Khaibar pass into the land of the 
Eive Rivers. These men had trodden, step by step, the whole 
way from the shores of the Mediterranean, and for the first 
time Greek and Indian looked upon each other's face. Many 
things in the India discovered to Alexander and his soldiers 
were like the things seen in India to-day — the wide dusty 
plains, the naked ascetics sitting by the wayside. But in 
some respects the aspect of things was different. None of 
those intricate carven temples or figures of curious gods which 
we associate with the India of to - day were to be seen ; the 
sculptured rocks were then plain ; it was from this new people 
that the Indian would get the impulse to build and carve in 

No kingdom of any large dimensions existed in India. 
The peoples, w^re divided into hundreds of petty principalities, 
often at war with one another. The two most considerable 
princes with whom Alexander had to do were those whom the 
Greeks called Taxiles and Porus. The principality of Taxiles 
lay between the Indus and Hydaspes (mod. Jehlam), that of 


INDIA 293 

Porus farther east, between the Hydaspes and Acesines (mod. 
Chenab). Taxiles from the outset made friends with the 
strange and terrible invaders ; Porus tried conclusions with 
them and was defeated in the hard-fought battle beside the 
Hydaspes. After that he also, as one brave man with another, 
made friends with the Macedonian king. Both Taxiles and 
Porus got their reward in an extension of their territories. 
The first effect of the Macedonian conquest in the Panjab was 
to break down the boundaries which divided one little kingdom 
from another, and create two realms of larger dimensions than 
India had yet known. Porus became king of all the country 
between the Hydaspes and Hyphasis (Beas) — containing, 
according to one account,^ 5000 towns not smaller than Cos — 
and was only so far limited in his sovereignty that his kingdom 
was counted a province of the Macedonian Empire, and he 
himself had the standing of a satrap, with the implied obliga- 
tion of paying tribute.^ But no Macedonian troops seem to 
have been stationed in his sphere. Taxiles, who also had his 
territory enlarged, was more directly subject to Macedonian 
control. A Macedonian satrap, Philip, remained at his side, 
and his capital, Taxila, was held by a garrison.^ 

On the lower Indus, below the confluence of the Acesines, 
the native princes, who had shown themselves untrustworthy, 
were not left in possession. Here an Iranian nobleman * and 
a Macedonian chief, Pithon the son of Agenor, ruled side by 
side. To this satrapy certain regions on the west of the Indus 
which had belonged to the Persian Empire (the Gandava 
region ?) were attached, their population probably being Indian, 
not Iranian. 

Alexander, of course, rooted Greek civilization here as in 
other parts of the East by a line of new cities along the course 
of the Indus. 

1 Strabo xv. 701. 

^ dcf)fJK€v avTov &pxeiv S}v i^aaiXeve (TaTpairrjv KoKovfievov, Plutarch, Alex. 60. 

^ Arr. Anah. v. 8, 3. 

* In Arr. Anab. vi. 15, 4, Oxyartes is named. But the Oxyartes, the 
father-in-law of Alexander, was satrap of the Paropanisidae, and that he com- 
bined that satrapy with the satrapy of the lower Indus, as Niese thinks (i. p. 
503), is hard to suppose, since they were not contiguous. There is probably 
some confusion which we cannot unravel. 


We distinguish thus three Indian provinces : (1) that of 
the upper Indus to its junction with the Acesines, governed 
by Taxiles and PhiKp ; (2) that of the lower Indus, governed 
by Oxyartes (?) and Pithon ; and (3) that of the country 
beyond the Hydaspes, governed by Porus. 

The troops settled by Alexander in India seem, in part at 
any rate, to have been, not Macedonians, but Greek mercenaries ; 
and just as in Bactria a national Greek movement against the 
Macedonians took place, so in India, soon after Alexander left 
it, there was a conspiracy of the Greek captains against the 
Macedonian Philip, which culminated in his assassination. 
But the conspirators were killed and the insurrection sup- 
pressed by the Macedonian guards.^ Soon afterwards Pithon 
had taken the place of Philip, and the province of the lower 
Indus had been added to the realm of Porus, which thus 
reached the sea. This is the situation at Alexander's death 

The rivalries which then convulsed the Empire reached to 
India. Eudamus, who had held command of a Thracian con- 
tingent " in the province of the upper Indus, now came to the 
front. Like the satraps of Further Iran, he embraced the 
royalist cause in 317, whilst Pithon the son of Agenor is 
found as an adherent of Antigonus. Eudamus seems to have 
formed the design of creating a yet larger Indian realm by 
uniting all the provinces under his own hand. Pithon had 
probably fled to join Antigonus, and Porus was entangled in the 
snares of Eudamus and murdered.^ Eudamus was now supreme 
in the Panjab, master of a force of the elephants which were 
held to be the strength of the Indian armies. But in 317 he 
left India to join the united satraps with Eumenes, and he 
never returned. He was put to death by Antigonus.* 

But the fever with which India, from its contact with the 
disturbed area of western Asia, had been infected still worked. 
The idea of the great kingdom was in the air. It had been in 
part realized. The old order had been confounded and the 
old landmarks trampled down. It was the sort of chaos which 
gives the strong man his opportunity. And the strong man 

1 Arr. Anab. vi. 27, 2. 2 Curtius x. 1, 21. 

3 Diod. xix. 14, 8. * Ibid. 44, 1. 


appeared in a native Indian, Chandragupta,^ who had not read 
the signs of the times in vain. 

The origin of a great personality gathers quickly about it 
in India a rank growth of legend. The real Chandragupta 
has ceased to be distinguishable at all in the myths as they 
are set down in later Indian books. In our classical sources 
the process is only in its earlier stages ; the stories were such 
as were told to Greek travellers a generation or two after the 
great man's time. Chandragupta, according to their account, 
was of a low caste,^ the prototype of Sivaji the Mahratta. As 
a boy he had seen Alexander, the invincible splendid man 
from the West.^ Later on, when he became a great king, 
Chandragupta worshipped Alexander among his gods,* Like 
Sivaji and many others who have risen to power in India, 
Chandragupta began his rise as a captain of marauders. He 
had offended the king of the district where he lived, Nanda or 
Nandrus,^ and had taken to the jungle. A lion, it is recorded 
in the legend as given by Justin, had come upon him when 
sleeping outworn, and licked him without doing him any hurt. 
He flung himself into the chaos which prevailed in the Panjab 
after the death of Eudamus in 316.*^ If a great king was to 
arise in India, he might be a native as well as a ]\Iacedonian. 
Chandragupta presented himself as a national leader. Successes 
surrounded him with a superstitious halo. It was believed 
that the elephant he rode was a wild one which had knelt of 
its own accord to receive him upon its back. The Macedonian 
dominion in the land was broken. But its work in doing 
away with the little principalities stood. The Panjab was one 
great kingdom. A new power had arisen in India also out of 
the ruins of Alexander's Empire.'' 

^ In Greek, 7!,av8p6KOTTOs or 'AvSpi/coTTos. " Just. xv. 4. 

^ Plutarch, Alex. 62. * Ibid. De seipsum citra inv. laud. 10. 

* Nanda in Indian sources ; Nandrus probably in Just. xv. 4, 16. 

« Mr. V. A. Smith, in his useful book on Jsoku (Rulers of India Series, 1901), 
in putting the conquest of the Panjab by Chandragupta "in the cold season 
following the death of Alexander at Babylon in the sunuiier of B.C. 323," st-ems 
to have overlooked the Partition of Triparadisus and the career of Eudamus 

^ Niese thinks that the principality of Taxiles, west of the Hydaspes, was not 
subject to Chandragupta, and that the Sophytes, whose coins are found near 
Peshawar, was its ruler. 


But Chandragupta's possession of the Indian provinces 
was, of course, challenged when Seleucus, between 312 and 
302, established his authority in the East. Once more a great 
Macedonian army pushed victoriously into the Panjab. But 
it was at the moment when the situation in the West was 
coming to a crisis, and Seleucus was needed to throw his weight 
into the scale against Antigonus. He had no time to ground 
his dominion in India. So he agreed with Chandragupta 
quickly. The new Indian king was left in possession, and he 
on his part promised alliance, if not allegiance. A marriage 
cemented the two houses, and Chandragupta furnished Seleucus 
with 500 elephants to be used in Asia Minor. Those regions 
on the west of the Indus, which had been detached by Alex- 
ander from the Iranian province to which they had belonged, 
Seleucus now ceded to the Indian king.^ Thenceforward the 
relations of the house of Seleucus and that of Chandragupta 
seem to have been of the friendliest.^ 

But the tendency towards the formation of a great realm, 
which the Macedonian conquest had set in motion, was not 
yet arrived at its completion. Chandragupta passed from the 
Panjab into that more eastern India watered by the Ganges 
and its tributaries, and carried all before him. His conquest 
reached to the Bay of Bengal. From the Indus to the mouth 
of the Ganges was now a single empire, whose centre and seat 
of government was fixed by the conqueror at Pataliputra (mod. 

And wherever Chandragupta ruled, there the influence of 
Alexander could be traced. We have seen that the new Indian 
realm sprang directly out of Alexander's Empire, and that 
Chandragupta acknowledged its origin in his worship of the 
Macedonian king. At the altars which Alexander built beside 
the Hyphasis when he turned back westward it was long the 
custom for the kings who ruled on the Ganges to offer periodic 
sacrifices according to Greek rites.^ Intercourse between the 

^ Mr. V. A. Smith (Asoka, p. 66) quotes Strabo as saying that Seleucus 
ceded " a large part of Ariane," but that Strabo does not say. In t,'iving Arachosia, 
the Kabul, and even Gedrosia to the new Indian realm Mr. Vincent, I think, 
exceeds what is even probable, not to say proved. 

' App. Syr. 55 ; Strabo xv. 689, 724 ; Just. xv. 4, 20. 

' Plutarch, Alex. 62. 

INDIA 297 

court of Pataliputra and the Greek courts of the West was 
maintained. Megasthenes resided for a time at Pataliputra 
as the ambassador of Seleucus to Chandragupta, and left the 
standard work on India to later generations of classical 
antiquity.^ Deimachus of Plataea went as ambassador to the 
son and successor of Chandragupta, Bindusara Amitraghata,^ 
and also put the information which he gathered on record. 
An ambassador of Ptolemy II to India, Dionysius, is mentioned 
as a third authority.^ We may presume that Hindoo envoys 
were likewise to be seen at the Seleucid and Ptolemaic courts 
even before Asoka sent his missionaries. 

Intercourse between far separated branches of the human 
family must have been advanced in an altogether new degree 
when the whole length of Asia from the mouth of the Ganges 
to the coasts of the Mediterranean was occupied by two friendly 
empires ! And it must be remembered that a Greek merchant- 
man would not now come into India as into an altogether 
strange land. In the Panjab also under the Indian king he 
would find the Greek population settled by Alexander. Greek 
was perhaps widely diffused as a language of commerce in 
western India and Afghanistan.* Of the movements in the 
commercial world — what we should now so like to know of 
the mingling of nationalities at the great centres, the life of 
the road-side and the khan, our authorities tell us nothing. 
They see nothing outside the courts aud camps. But even at 
the courts we discover a curiosity of Hellene and Indian with 
regard to each other's worlds. We hear of the strange drugs 
sent by Chandragupta to Seleucus,^ and of the letter of Bindusara 
to Antiochus asking to be furnished for a price with the sweet 
rich ' drink which one of the Greek processes of wine-making 
produced, with a quantity of dried figs for which Asia Minor 
then as now was famous, and with a teacher of Greek learning, 
a " sophist." " The figs and the wine," Antiochus wrote back, 

1 F.n.G. ii. p. 398 ; Susemihl, Gesch. d. griech. Lit. i. p. 547 f. 

2 For Deimachus see F.H.O. ii. p. 440 ; Suseraihl i. p. 656. Ainitraghuta, 
the surname of Bindusara, is not, I believe, fouml in Indian sources, but is in- 
ferred to be the original of the name this king bears in Greek sources, ' A.iMTpoxi5a$. 

s Plin. vi. § 58. 

* Gardner, Greek and Scythic Kings of Bactria and India, p. liii. 

5 Phylarch. frag. ^I^F.U.G. i. p. 344. 


" shall be sent, but a sophist is not, according to the custom of 
the Greeks, an article of sale." ^ 

But how far-reaching in its effects the Macedonian 
intervention in India was destined to be began to be seen when 
the third king of the new Indian realm, Asoka the son of 
Bindusara, embraced Buddhism. The teaching of Gautama 
Sakyamuni, after having been for some 200 years the doctrine 
of one of the innumerable Indian sects, was now lifted to a 
position of world-wide importance. The creation of a single 
great kingdom in India had made possible the extension of a 
single religion. To the Macedonian conquest therefore the rise 
of Buddhism in India and the subsequent conquest by Buddhism 
of Central and Further Asia was in the first instance due. 
When we hear so often the cheap wisdom uttered with an air of 
profundity, which depreciates all " Western " influence upon the 
East as essentially transitory and evanescent, it is interesting 
to observe the opinion of one who speaks with authority — 
that " upon the institutions brought in by Alexander the whole 
subsequent development of India depends." ^ 

King Asoka was ardent to propagate the Doctrine in all 
the earth. In the Greek cities of the West, as far as Gyrene and 
Epirus, one might have had glimpses of dark men, with the 
monkish tonsure and the long yellow robe, who were come 
to roll onward even here the Wheel of the Kingdom of 
Eighteousness. Perhaps the kings themselves — the wine- 
sodden Antiochus II, the literary and scientific dilettante 
Ptolemy Philadelphus, the grave Stoic Antigonus — were 
summoned by the envoys of Asoka to walk in the Eightfold 
Path — right belief, right will, right word, right deed, right 
life, right effort, right thought, right self- withdrawal — and to 
receive the Four Truths concerning the pain in the world and 
its taking away. " Open your ears, ye kings, the Eedemption 
from death is found ! " The record of the sending out of these 
missionaries is established by Asoka himself, graven on the 
rocks of India ; ^ it is a pity that we have no western account 

1 Hegesander, frag. AZ = F.H.G. iv. p. 421. ^ Niese i. p. 508. 

3 "And this is the chiefest conquest in His Majesty's opinion — the conquest 
by the Law ; this also is that effected by His Majesty both in his own dominions 
and in all the neighbouring realms as far as six hundred leagues — even to where 



of the impression which they made. They must have trodden 
the same roads which three hundred years later were trodden 
by the apostles of another Faith and another Eedemption. 

the Greek king (Yona raja) Antiochus dwells, and beyond that Antiochus to 
where dwell the four kings severally named Ptolemy, Antigonus, Magas and 
Alexander" {i.e. Alexander II of Epirus) . . . "and likewise here, in the 
King's dominions, among the Yonas " {i.e. the Greeks of the Panjab). Vincent 
A. Smith, Asoka, p. 131 ; Corp. Inter. Indic. i. p. 86. E. Hardy's Asoka 
(Mainz, 1902) I had not yet seen at the time of going to press. 



We return from our survey of the East to that poiut in our 
narrative when we saw the Seleucid King struck down in 
Asia Minor whilst engaged in recovering his inheritance 
from Attalus of Pergamos. By the assassination of Seleucus 
III the royal army was suddenly deprived of its head 
in the enemy's country ; but a successful retirement across 
the Taurus was effected by the skill of the general Epigenes. 
For a while the succession to the vacant throne appeared 
doubtful. Antiochus, the younger son of Seleucus II Kal- 
linikos, then a youth of about eighteen,^ was far away in 
Babylonia,^ and some time must expire before he could 
appear in the West. Meanwhile the direction of affairs 
had been at once assumed upon the King's death by his 
cousin Achaeus. He had acted vigorously against the party 
responsible for the murder, and had put Meaner and Apaturius 
to death. He was strong, able and popular, and public feeling 
ran in favour of his assuming the diadem. But Achaeus 
remained true to his absent cousin, proclaimed him king, and 
himself undertook a new campaign in Asia Minor to restore the 
authority of the Seleucid house.^ 

The popular voice of the Macedonians in Syria now called 

1 He was fifty in 191, Polyb. xx. 8, 1. 

- Eus. i. 253 ; Jerome, in Dan. 11, 10. 

^ The view which saw in the child Antiochus of the coins (Babelon, p. Ixxiv.) 
and the Antiochus mentioned without surname in the inscription of Seleucia 
{C.I.G. 4458) an infant son of Seleucus III, proclaimed king for a moment on 
his father's death, is now generally discredited (Wilcken, Niese). Niese adopts 
this view in his text, but abandons it in a note (ii. p. 777). 


> \/ 


for the presence of the young King/ and Antiochus moved 
west. The first dispositions of the new reign were the delivery 
to Achaeus of full powers in the trans-Tauric country and a 
similar delegation of the royal authority beyond the Tigris to 
Molon, the satrap of Media, and his brother Alexander, the 
satrap of Persis. Antiochus III, however, was not yet his own 
master. The real director of the affairs of the kingdom was 
the prime minister, Hermlas. He had shown himself a minister 
of the type familiar at despotic courts, greedy of power, 
intolerant of rivals, and murderous in his rancours. His 
influence was a menace to all prominent persons in the kingdom. 
E^pigenes, the beloved general, was the especial object of his 
jealousy. Such a regime naturally brought its nemesis in the 
disaffection of the King's high officers. It was generally 
expected that Achaeus would renounce his allegiance. Molon 
and Alexander made haste to secure themselves, as they 
imagined, by rebellion (221). Their neighbours on the east, 
Arsaces in Parthia, Diodotus in Bactria, showed an example of 
successful defiance. Molon also now declared himself a king^ 
and essayed to turn away from the house of Seleucus the 
hearts of the Greek colonists and native tribes in Nearer Iran. 
The weaknesses in the frame of the Empire, which 
ultimately proved fatal, were already indicated in this crisis — 
its relinquishment of Asia Minor and Iran foreshown. But 
as yet it did not seem past hope that a strong hand might 
renew the broken bonds. Achaeus might still with skilful 
management be retained. In the East one element in the 
situation made powerfully for the house of Seleucus — its 
popularity with the Greek cities. Encompassed by alien 
peoples, the Greeks in the East looked to Antioch for the 
protection of Hellenism. It was the great advantage the house 
of Seleucus possessed, and again and again in the course of 
these times barbarian conquerors and rebel captains found it 
a permanent force to be reckoned with. The line of policy by 
which the crisis at this moment could be met was plainly 
marked out — to avoid all further entanglements, to conciliate 

^ Jerome, loc. cit. 

'^ Coins with the name of King Molon are found, Babelon, p. Ixxxvi., 
Catalogue, p. 60. 


Achaeus, and to turn the disposition of the eastern Greeks to 
account. It only required a firm will to carry it through. 

Unfortunately the throne was occupied by a youth and 
swayed by a corrupt minister. At the council held to consider 
the rebellion in the East, Epigenes advised an immediate 
advance on the satraps, and urged the passion of loyalty which 
the appearance of the King in those regions would arouse. 
Hermias replied with a fury due in part to his hatred of 
Epigenes, in part to terror of the war. He roundly accused 
the general of wishing to deliver the King's person into his 
enemies' hands. The Council were frightened by this outbreak 
into acquiescence, and only a force under Xenon and Theodotus 
(nicknamed" One-and-a-half ")^ was sent against Molon. Hermias, 
however, was still uneasy lest the King might be induced to go 
to the eastern provinces, and to prevent it he conceived the 
plan of reopening the controversy with Egypt as to Coele- 
Syria, which would keep the King's hands full, and at the same 
time would not, in view of the character of the reigning 
Ptolemy, entail much danger. For about this time (winter 
222-221)^ the Egyptian throne, which had been occupied by 
three great rulers, passed to the contemptible Ptolemy 
Pliilopator. It became the interest of Hermias to present 
before the King's eyes the danger in the west of the Empire in 
the liveliest colours. The success which Achaeus had met 
with in Asia Minor gave him an opportunity. Already the 
Pergamene power had been broken, and Attains was being 
driven within ever narrower limits ; already Achaeus was to 
all intents and purposes master of the trans-Tauric country. 
It was easy to work upon the King's fears and make him see 
a great conspiracy threatening the Empire on all sides — a 
league which embraced the king of Egypt in the "West as well 
as the revolting satraps in the East. Hermias removed all 
doubts by producing a letter (which he had forged) from 
Ptolemy to Achaeus, urging him to assume the diadem. 

In the marriage of the young King, which now took 

' The meaning of the nickname is doubtful. Schweighjiuser suggests that it 
refers to his being above the ordinary height ; Miiller {F.H.G. iii. p. 167) that it 
refers to the boats used by pirates, called ■vM'oXta. 

2 Niese ii. p. 360, note 2. 


place, we may see the Seleucid court actuated by the motive 
of securing its more than ever precarious hold on Asia 
Minor. The policy initiated by Antiochus II was still 
followed. The bride chosen for Antiochus III was Laodice, 
the daughter of Mithridates I^ of Pontic Cappadocia. She ^ 
was, no doubt, his first cousin, her mother being that aunt of 
his whom Mithridates had espoused. She was escorted from 
Cappadocia by the admiral Dioguetus, and the nuptials were 
celebrated at Seleucia on the Euphrates Bridge, where the 
court was at the time residing. As soon as the marriage was 
over, the court moved to Antioch, and preparations for an 
attack on Egypt were pushed forward. 

The position of Molon meanwhile in the East grew in- 
creasingly formidable. In his own satrapy of Media he had a 
defensible country, guarded by mountain and desert, and, as we 
saw in the case of Pithon,^ well adapted for the formation of a 
great military power. He had taken measures to bind the 
neighbouring satraps to his cause.^ The native princes, outside 
the sphere of Macedonian authority, of whom the greatest was 
Artabazanes of Lesser Media (Adharbaijan), were ready to sup- 
port an antagonist of the Seleucid power.^ The inherent loyalty 
of the Greek and Macedonian settlers to the royal house Molon 
fought by largesses, severity, promises and forged dispatches, 
tending to show the King in an evil light. The generals sent 
by the court, Xenon and Theodotus, did not dare to offer battle 
and sat down behind fortifications. Molon became master of 
Apolloniatis. Then he even marched on Seleucia. The city 
being on the western bank of the Tigris, he could not reach 
it without crossing the river, and this Zeuxis, the satrap of 
Babylonia, prevented by seizing all the boats. Molon had to 
be content to take up his winter -quarters'* (of 221) in 

1 See p. 41. 

^ ■fjcrcpaXicrpL^i'os di Kal rh Kara raj ■jrapaKei/j.ei'as ffarpairdas Sia t^j twv 
irpoecrTUTwv evvoias Kal dupodoKias, Pol. v. 43, 6. This is certainly difficult. Tlie 
rulers of the two satrapies on the north, Parthia and Atropatene, already set up 
for independent kings and were above the j)etty sort of bribery implied in 
SupodoKia, the satrap of Persis was Molon's own brother, the satraps of Babylonia 
and Susiana remained faithful to Antiochus. There remains only Carniania. 

3 Polyb. V. 55, 1. 

* It is astonishing that the practice of going into winter-quarters, which is 


Ctesiphon, the military station opposite the city on the other 
bank, and there wait his opportunity. 

These movements of Molon caused a fresh tension at the 
court. But Hermias still carried his point. Only a general 
should be sent against a rebel. Kings should go to war with 
none but kings.^ Accordingly, late in the summer of 221," 
whilst the invasion of Ccele-Syria was set on foot under the 
leadership of the King in person, Xenoetas, an Achaean 
adventurer, led a new force eastwards. He was given 
supreme authority over the provincial commanders to conduct 
operations at his discretion. 

Xenoetas marched to Seleucia, where he found Zeuxis. 
The governors of Susiana and the " Red Sea " province, 
Diogenes and Pythiades, who were still loyal, joined him by 
command. He pitched beside the river on the western bank 
over against the rebels. The information brought him by 
deserters, who swam the river, showed how strong the royal 
cause still was in the East. The rank and file of Molon's 
regular forces, drawn, no doubt, from the Greek or Macedonian 
colonies, were, they reported, at heart far more attached to the 
King than to their leader. Xenoetas had only to cross the 
river and the mass of Molon's army would come over to his 

The subsequent events do not allow us to think much of 
the diligence or watchfulness of either of the opposed com- 
manders. Molon was iirst so slovenly in his patrolling that 
Xenoetas was able by night to throw across a body of troops 
nine miles down stream and take up a strong position among 
the marshes without opposition. The main camp on the west 
bank was left in charge of Zeuxis and Pythiades. An attempt 
of Molon to dislodge Xenoetas failed, owing to his defective 
topographical information, and his detachments floundered 
helplessly in the morass. When Xenoetas advanced to give 
the rebel army an opportunity to desert, Molon abandoned his 
camp and took the road to Media. The advantage which 

intelligible enough in Greece, should have been maintained by a Greek army in 
the climate of Baghdad. 

^ The royalty assumed by Molon was therefore ignored. 

2 Niese ii. p. 366. 


Xenoetas had won by his enemy's negligence it was now his 
turn to throw away by his own. Considering all danger over, 
he occupied Molon's camp at Ctesiphon, brought over his 
cavalry for the pursuit, and suffered his troops to give them- 
selves up to riotous indulgence. Then Molon turned swiftly 
and took the division of Xenoetas by complete surprise. A 
great part were massacred in drunken slumbers, others, mad 
with panic, tried to regain the camp of Zeuxis by swimming 
the Tigris, and in most cases perished. " An impressive and 
fantastic spectacle was offered by the scene on the river, not 
only men swimming, but horses, pack -beasts, shields, dead 
bodies, stuff of all kinds, carried on the surface." The panic 
spread to the opposite shore, Zeuxis and the other division 
incontinently fled, and Molon crossed the river, without 
meeting any resistance, to occupy the original camp of the 
royal army. 

The retirement of the satrap of Babylonia left Seleucia 
exposed. Even Diomedon, the governor of the city, had 
accompanied his flight. The eastern capital of the Empire 
fell forthwith into the rebel's hands. Babylonia was Molon's, 
and, passing down the river, he took possession of the " Eed 
Sea" province, whose governor, Pythiades, had probably, like 
Diomedon, fled with Zeuxis. Diogenes, on the other hand, had 
hurried back to defend his province, and contrived to throw 
himself into the citadel of Susa, although Molon was already 
investing it when he arrived. Molon could not afford to stay 
long in Susiana ; leaving therefore a detachment to prosecute 
the siege, he returned to complete the conquest of the river- 
lands north of Babylonia, the provinces of Mesopotamia and 

The news of the disaster reached the King at a moment 
when he was on other grounds disposed to suspend operations 
against Ptolemy. He had about the same time that Xencetas 
left for the East moved out from Apamea, the military head- 
quarters of the Empire, to accomplish the invasion of Cosle- 
Syria. The gate of that province towards the north was the 
narrow and swampy valley, called Marsyas, between the 
Lebanon and Antilibanus mountains. It was commanded 
on each side by the fortresses of Gerrha and Brochi, and these 




were held for Ptolemy by Theodotus the Aetolian. In vain 
the royal army attempted to break through; the lieutenant of 
Ptolemy brought the Seleucid King to a foohsh stand at the 
very threshold of that province it was proposed to claim by 
arms. Under these circumstances the news arrived that the 
army of Xencetas had been annihilated. 

The quarrel, of course, between Hermias and Epigenes now 
flamed up afresh. Events were confounding the policy of the 
prime minister. In spite of his raving denunciations, Epigenes 
had too strong a case not to carry the Council with him. It 
was resolved that the King should advance against Molon in 
person. Hermias had the sense to embrace the inevitable ; if, 
however, he could not hinder the expedition, he was determined 
his rival should win no laurels in it. But to remove him was 
doubly difficult, since on the one hand his reputation made 
the King his friend, and on the other he was an idol of the 
armj'. When the forces for the East were mustered at 
Apamea, an occasion to overcome both these obstacles at one 
stroke offered. The troublous times under the last kings, com- 
bined with the loss of the eastern provinces, had acquainted 
the Seleucid court with what in later times was to become its 
standing embarrassment — want of money. The pay of the 
troops fell into arrear, and they began to use the urgency of 
the present crisis to press their claims. Hermias now came 
forward and proposed to the King a bargain with which he 
had no choice but to close ; he undertook to satisfy all the 
demands of the soldiery on condition that Epigenes did not 
accompany the expedition. This action represented him at 
the same time to the army as its champion, and attached it to 
his interests. Epigenes retired into private life. Only the 
troops drawn from Cyrrhestice (6000 in number) stood by 
the fallen hero, and their disaffection was not disposed of till 
after a pitched battle the following year (220), in which the 
majority of them perished. Even in his retirement Epigenes 
was an object of fear to the guilty minister. He compassed 
his death on the charge of corresponding with Molon, a charge 
which he supported by causing a forged letter from the rebel 
to be slipped among Epigenes' papers. The hush of terror 
prevailed in the entourage of the King. 


The royal array crossed the Euphrates at the end of 22 1, and 
traversed Mesopotamia by the route which led close under the 
northern hills to Antioch (Nisibis) in Mygdonia. In this 
city a halt of six weeks was made during the most severe 
portion of the winter, and with the first approach 6f spring 
(220) the advance was continued to the Tigris.^ From this point 
two alternative routes presented themselves. Hermias wished 
to march directly upon Molon in Babylonia, following the 
course of the river on the western bank.^ The satrap of 
Babylonia, who was now with the King, was able, from his 
special knowledge of the country, to show the inconveniences 
of this plan. Amongst other things, the southern part of 
Mesopotamia was desolate steppe, where only the wandering 
Arabs spread their tents, and it would be impossible for the 
army to find fresh supplies. Having passed through this, a 
march of six days, they would come upon the elaborate canal- 
system by which Babylonia was at once irrigated and defended, 
and if this were held by the enemy it would effectually bar 
their way ; the only alternative would be retreat through the 
steppe in the face of the enemy, and probably without pro- 
visions. Zeuxis therefore urged that they should cross to the 
eastern side. There, as soon as they reached Apolloniatis, the 
country was under regular cultivation, and they would be in 
the midst of plenty. The hold which the house of Seleucus 
had upon the hearts of the settlers, who were intimidated only 
into supporting Molon, would be turned to account. Above 
all, by threatening to cut off Molon from his base in Media 
they would compel him either to offer battle or run the great 
danger which a delay, in view of the doubtful temper of his 
troops, would bring. Before the reason and authority of these 
arguments Hermias was constrained to give way. The army 
crossed the Tigris in three bands and advanced southwards. 
At Dura they reached the northern limit of Melon's conquests 
in Parapotamia, and found his troops still besieging the town. 

* Libba, site unknown, probably near Nineveh. 

2 "Covering themselves with this river and the Lycus (Greater Ziib) and the 
Caprus (Lesser Zab)," says Polybius. Since these two latter rivers join the 
Tigris from the cast, it is hard to sec how they could be a protection to an army 
on the western bank. In any case the attack apprehended by Hermias must 
have been a flank attack from l\Icdia. 


These they drove off and proceeded for eight days more, when, 
crossing the ridge of Oricus, they saw at their feet the rich 
district of Apolloniatis. 

Molon was now finding out how precarious his defences 
were against the magic of the King's person. He could not 
trust the populations of the provinces he had lately conquered. 
He could not trust his own army, not at any rate the Greeks 
and Macedonians, who constituted the bulk no doubt of his 
regular troops. He saw himself in danger of having his 
communications with Media cut. Hastily recrossing the Tigris, 
he purposed to arrest the progress of the royal army in the 
rugged defiles of Apolloniatis, and placed his chief reliance on 
the Kurdish irregulars who served with his army as slingers. 
In this region, accordingly, the two armies met, and some 
indecisive skirmishes took place between the scouting parties 
on either side. But the neighbourhood of the King made it 
enormously harder for the rebel to prevent his army breaking 
up in his hands. How to use this instrument without losing 
it became the problem ; Molon did not know what wave of 
feeling might not rush through his troops if the youthful king 
of the old and glorious house were seen claiming their allegiance. 
He determined to strike by night, but when, riding out with 
a picked body, he saw ten young soldiers make away in a body 
towards the royal camp, his nerve was shaken, and he returned 
at dawn, a doomed man. The decisive battle was fought on 
that day. The royal left, where Hermias and Zeuxis com- 
manded, was driven back by Molon, but on the right Molon's 
brother Neolaus found himself opposed to the King, and all 
that Molon feared took place. As soon as the King was seen, 
the troops went over. Molon saw that the game was up, and, 
together with the other ringleaders in the rebellion, committed 
suicide. Neolaus hastened to the province of Persis, where 
his brother Alexander was waiting the event with the remainder 
of the family of Molon, his mother and his children, and made 
haste to consummate the self-destruction of his house. The 
body of Molon was crucified in the Callonitis on the road over 
the Zagrus, the most conspicuous spot in Media. It was 
understood that in the punishment of rebel leaders the house 
of Seleucus followed the practice of the old Achaemenian kings. 


The rebellion had been shipwrecked on the respect which 
the royal name commanded in the popular heart throughout 
the Greek east. It now remained to settle the affairs of the 
reconquered districts. To the soldiery who had followed 
Molon the King had first addressed a severe reprimand ; they 
then shook hands in honest Macedonian fashion and made up 
the quarrel,^ and the troops were led back to Media by officers 
specially appointed to reorganize the province. Antiochus 
himself moved to Seleucia, to hold his court in the eastern 
capital. And now his individual personality began to emerge 
in distinction from that of his minister. Hermias was for 
turning the punishment of those who had taken part in the 
rebellion into a debauch of cruelty. Upon Seleucia, which 
had after all only yielded to superior force in joining Molon, 
the prime minister was forward to gratify his frightful appetite. 
The " Adeiganes " were banished. Others of the principal 
citizens were put to death, or mutilated, or racked. A fine 
of 1000 talents was laid upon the city. The bent of the 
young King was all the other way. Prudence and generosity 
together urged him in the direction of mildness, and he was 
able to some extent to restrain the minister's enormities. The 
fine was reduced to 150 talents. Diogenes, who had dis- 
tinguished himself by his defence of Susa, was rewarded 
by being transferred to the governorship of Media, and 
was succeeded in Susiana by Apollodorus. Pythiades was 
superseded in the " Eed Sea " province by Tychon, the 
arcJiigrammateus of the royal army. 

Antiochus considered that the moment of prestige should 
be used to assert the authority of the house of Seleucus in the 
neighbouring country, or the work would be left half done. 
He designed in the first place to attack Artabazanes of Lesser 
Media, who was now in extreme old age. Again Hermias 
took fright at eastern expeditions and played the old card of 
Coele-Syria. But on news arriving that the Queen had been 
delivered in Syria of a son, a new prospect of power opened 
before him in case of the King's decease, and he now advocated 
the eastern expedition as making that contingency more probable. 

^ Antiochus shows towards the ringleaders the character of a Persian king, 
towards the soldiers that of a Macedonian. 


The King accordingly left Seleucia, and led the army across 
the Zagrus into the Urumiya basin, where the Iranian dynasty 
had reigned, since the time of Alexander, undisturbed. On 
the novel appearance of a royal army in these regions 
Artabazanes bowed to the occasion, and accepted the terms 
which Antiochus imposed. 

For a complete reconquest of the eastern provinces the 
time was not yet ripe. It would be hazardous in the extreme 
for the Seleucid King to plunge into distant lands while the 
hearth of the Empire was threatened by Achaeus and Ptolemy. 
But before the King set out homewards an event of importance 
took place in his immediate circle. The dark hopes which 
Hermias was nursing were penetrated by the royal physician, 
Apollophanes, between whom and Antiochus a real affection 
existed. To broach his suspicions to the King was, however, 
still dangerous, since it was not known how far the influence of 
the minister over the young man's mind extended. Apollophanes 
nevertheless ran the risk, and pointedly adjured the King to 
remember his brother's fate. To his relief, Antiochus confessed 
that he himself secretly regarded Hermias with aversion and 
dread, and prayed Apollophanes to make for him a way of 
escape. There was no lack of persons in that society ready 
to bear a hand in the destruction of the hated minister. But 
even with the King's countenance Apollophanes had to work 
by stealth. On the pretext that Antiochus was suffering from 
certain disorders, the physician was able to regulate the 
admissions to the royal apartments, and the King's chamber 
became itself the rendezvous of the conspirators. Then it 
was given out that Antiochus had been ordered to walk abroad 
at dawn, to take the cool air of morning, and Hermias seized 
the occasion to come at the King's person. It was a trap ; 
the only others present at that unusual hour were those 
who were in the plot. The King chose for his early walk 
a path which led them to a lonely spot outside the camp, 
where he made an excuse to retire. Immediately the con- 
spirators dispatched Hermias with their swords. The news 
of the prime minister's fall was received with a transport of 
joy throughout the kingdom. Wherever the royal army came 
on its homeward march, the King was met with expressions of 


satisfaction. At Apamea in Syria, where the family of Ilerraias 
was residing, his wife was stoned to death by the women of 
the place, and his children by the children. 

By the time that Antiochus returned to Syria (end of 220) 
the danger from the West had declared itself in a sufficiently 
palpable form. Even the comparatively short expedition to 
Adharbaijan had emboldened Achaeus to throw off the mask. 
He designed to recross the Taurus, and counted on the support 
of Cyrrhestice when he appeared in Syria. Leaving Sardis, 
the seat of his government in Asia Minor, he took the road 
to Syria. At Laodicea (in Phrygia) he publicly assumed the 
diadem and the royal name. But immediately he had to meet 
the same difficulty which had thwarted Molon, the feeling 
among the Greco-Macedonian soldiery which forbade them to 
lift their spears against a Seleucid king. Achaeus was obliged 
to dissimulate the objective of his march. But as the troops 
moved ever forward towards the Cilician Gates the suspicion of 
the truth broke upon them, and in Lycaonia they were on the 
verge of mutiny. Like Cyrus the Younger in somewhat 
similar circumstances, Achaeus had to cover his real purpose 
by pointing against the Pisidians — the untamed mountaineers 
who were at chronic war with all civilized government in Asia 
Minor. His foray, which yielded a considerable amount of 
loot to the troops, had the further advantage of regaining their 
good-will. But he was forced to abandon the idea of an 
invasion of Syria at the present moment, and retraced his steps 
to Lydia. 

This was the situation which confronted Antiochus on his 
return from the East. He saw that Achaeus had committed 
a blunder in uncovering his hostile designs whilst restrained 
from carrying them out. Syria need fear no attack from Asia 
Minor for some time to come. In regard, therefore, to Achaeus, 
Antiochus confined himself for the present to protests and 
menaces ; he turned to deal with the other party to the league, 
Ptolemy. Once more Apamea hummed with the preparations 
for an attack on the Ptolemaic power in Palestine. 

Polybius tells us that at the council held to discuss the 
plan of campaign Apollophanes, the physician, first pointed out 
that, before embarking on an invasion of Co?le-Syria, it was of 


prime importance to recapture the harbour-city of Seleucia, which 
since the wars of Seleucus II had been in Egj'^ptian possession. 
The surprising thing is that the urgency of this step was not 
immediately plain. One would have thought that a hostile 
garrison established some 12 miles from Antioch, commanding 
its communication with the sea, to say nothing of the loss of 
the strongest city in the kingdom, the place where the founder 
of the royal line reposed, would have been felt as an intoler- 
able burden. It is almost inexplicable that while this remained, 
enterprises in other directions should have been contemplated. 
Apollophanes was himself a citizen of Seleucia, exiled probably 
under the Ptolemaic regime, and this lent warmth to his argu- 
ments. The Council was brought to see the obvious. Whilst 
Theodotus " One-and-a-half" was sent to occupy the passes 
towards Coele- Syria and prepare for the invasion, the King him- 
self moved from Apamea to Seleucia and took up a position in 
the suburbs of the city. Diognetus, the admiral, was at the 
same time to operate against the city by sea. 

The attempts of Antiochus to buy over the governor 
Leontius, who controlled the city in the Ptolemaic interest, 
failed, but he succeeded in corrupting some of his subordinates. 
It was agreed that if the Seleucid army could gain possession 
of the outer city which adjoined the harbour, the gates should 
be opened. On this side alone was it possible to scale the 
walls. Accordingly, whilst the other generals, Zeuxis and 
Hermogenes, attacked the gates on the landward side (the 
Antioch Gate and the Dioscurium Gate), Ardys forced his way 
into the outer city, supported by Diognetus, who simultaneously 
brought his squadron to bear on the docks. The officers within 
the city, who were bought by Antiochus, now prevailed on 
Leontius to ask for terms. Antiochus agreed to the condition 
that the free population (6000 in number) should be spared, 
and the city was surrendered. Those citizens who had been 
exiled, no doubt the warmer partizans of the house of Seleucus, 
were restored to their homes and property ; otherwise the 
citizen-body was left undisturbed. A strong garrison was, of 
course, installed to hold the harbour and citadel. On the side 
of Egypt no attempt seems to have been made to avert a blow 
by which their position was so seriously impaired. 


Antiochus now received tidings which put a very new 
complexion upon affairs in the south. It will be remembered 
that the Ptolemaic governor in Ccele- Syria was Theodotus the 
Aetolian. His singular success in repelling the attack of 
Antiochus in 221 had, in the altered conditions at the Egyptian 
court under the miserable government of Ptolemy Philopator, 
only made him the mark of petty jealousies. He was summoned 
to Alexandria, and he knew well what that meant. In this 
strait he turned to the Seleucid King. Antiochus received an 
intimation that Theodotus was ready to deliver the town of 
Ptolemais (Old Testament Accho ; modern Acre), the official 
residence of the governor of Coele-Syria, into his hands. 
Panaetolus, a subordinate of Theodotus, would likewise surrender 
Tyre. This decided Antiochus to defer dealing with Achaeus 
still longer and to act in the matter of Egypt at once. He 
once more threaded the Marsyas valley and sat down before 
Gerrha and Brochi. But here the intelligence reached him 
that Egypt was taking measures swiftly to crush Theodotus 
before he could arrive. Nicolaus, himself too an Aetolian, 
and a soldier who had seen many wars, had been appointed by 
the Alexandrian court to secure the province, and Theodotus 
was now closely besieged in Ptolemais. There was no time to be 
lost. Antiochus left his heavy troops to continue the siege of 
Brochi, and, taking with him only the light-armed, set out to 
reach Ptolemais by the more rugged road which runs down the 
Phoenician coast. On the news of his approach Nicolaus 
retired, but ordered his lieutenants, Lagoras, a Cretan, and 
Dorymenes, an Aetolian, to occupy the pass by Berytus (mod. 
Bairut). The King, however, succeeded in dislodging them, 
and, once master of the pass, could afford to wait in position 
for the rest of the army. Then he advanced and was soon 
joined by the partizans of Theodotus. The gates of Tyre and 
then those of Ptolemais were opened to him according to the 
undertaking, and with the cities he got possession of their 
naval arsenals and considerable stores. He was able to make 
over to Diognetus, the admiral, no less than forty vessels, half 
of which were decked ships of war, of three banks of oars and 

In the flush of these fii-st successes Antiochus contemplated 


an immediate invasion of Egypt itself. But the accounts he 
received of the Egyptian muster at Pelusium to secure the 
frontier made him defer an enterprise which had baffled the 
companions of Alexander, Perdiccas and Antigonus. It seemed 
more prudeut for the present to complete the conquest of 
Coele-Syria, a process which consisted in the reduction of the 
cities one by one. 

It was, however, in reality a false move. Egypt was in a 
state of utter unpreparedness, and an immediate attack would 
probably have succeeded. The slow conquest of Coele-Syria 
gave the Ptolemaic court just that respite which it needed. 
It used it well, hiring the ablest captains of Greece to re- 
organize its forces, and pressing forward its preparations with 
feverish activity, whilst by invariably receiving foreign 
embassies at Memphis and making a show of laissez-faire it 
contrived to hoodwink the world completely as to what was on 
foot. It engaged the good offices of the Greek states, Rhodes, 
Cyzicus, Byzantium, and the Aetolian League, to mediate in the 
quarrel, and the diplomatic running to and fro which ensued all 
served to gain time. 

Winter (219-218) found Antiochus still occupied with the 
siege of Dora, the chief fortified harbour between Carmel and 
the Philistines. The city, supported from without by Nicolaus, 
defied his efforts. During the cold season the hardships of 
the besiegers would be doubled. An aggressive move on the 
part of Achaeus was again dreaded. Under these circum- 
stances Antiochus agreed to an armistice of four months and 
hastened back to Seleucia. Garrisons were left in the various 
strongholds south of the Lebanon, which he had acquired, and 
the charge of Seleucid interests in that region committed to the 
old governor Theodotus. 

The winter was used by the Egyptian court to continue 
its preparations, and the drill sergeant was busy at Alexandria. 
The Seleucid court, on the otber hand, reposed upon the con- 
temptuous estimate generally formed of the reigning Ptolemy. 
As soon as Antiochus had reached Seleucia the troops had 
been dismissed for months of idleness in their winter-quarters. 
The time of truce was wasted in futile negotiations. All the 
old controversy as to the treaties which preceded and succeeded 


the battle of Ipsus was gone over again. Then no agreement 
could be arrived at as to Achaeus ; the Egyptian court required 
that the peace should extend to him also, whilst Antiochus 
stood out that it was monstrous for Ptolemy to interfere 
between himself and a rebel subject. Warlike operations 
were accordingly resumed on either side in the spring (218). 
Antiochus reassembled his forces to complete the subjugation 
of Coele- Syria, whilst a Ptolemaic army mustered at Gaza 
under Nicolaus. Ample reinforcements and material of war 
were sent from Egypt, as well as a fleet under the admiral 
Perigenes, to co-operate with the land-forces. 

It seems curious that on his retirement at the end of the 
previous year's campaign, Antiochus had not secured the passes 
between Lebanon and the sea, especially since communication 
with the numerous garrisons in Palestine could only be 
maintained by way of the coast.^ Nicolaus was able to 
occupy in advance the passage at its narrowest point. At 
Platanus a precipitous ridge bars almost the whole strip of 
land, already narrow enough, between the mountain and the 
sea. This naturally strong position for a defender, Nicolaus 
strengthened further by artificial works and guarded by a 
large body of troops. He himself remained in support by the 
town of Porphyreon, The Ptolemaic fleet was stationed in 
the neighbourhood under Perigenes, who assisted zealously 
in the plans of the general. 

Antiochus advanced, and on the way renewed the alliance 
of his house with the Phconician republic of Aradus. Then 
he passed Tlieu-prosdpon,'^ Botrys, which he took, Berytus, 
Trieres and Calamus. The two latter towns were fired. 
From Calamus he sent an advanced party ahead under 
Nicarchus and Theodotus (the Aetolian or One-aud-a-half ?) 
to occupy the passage of the Lycus, and moved himself with 
the heavy troops more leisurely to the river Damuras (mod. 
Nahr-ad-Damfir), where he awaited the return of Nicarchus. 
The admiral Diognetus at the same time brought his fleet to 

1 The entrance into the country by Brochi and Gerrlm was still in Egj'ptian 


2 This is the precipitous headland of Ra's-ash-Shakka. Theu-prosopon- 
Phcenician P'ne-El (Penuel). 


anchor beside the army. After their return the King went 
in person to reconnoitre the position of the enemy at Platanus, 
and on the following day, leaving the heavy troops behind 
under Nicarchus, himself led the light-armed to the assault 
of the ridge. The opposed fleets simultaneously engaged close 
to shore, so that the land and sea fight presented, Polybius 
says, a single line. In both, the Ptolemaic forces had at first 
the better, but Theodotus succeeded in gaining the top of the 
ridge inland, where it joined the lower slopes of the Lebanon, 
and then attacked the enemy from above. This turned the 
day ; the force of Mcolaus, evacuating the pass in confusion, 
fell back upon Sidon. The Egyptian fleet, although still 
victorious, drew off and accompanied the retirement of the 
land-forces. Antiochus had succeeded in breaking open the . 
door of Palestine. 

The Seleucid army pursued its march along the Phoenician 
sea-board. From the walls of Sidon the defeated army saw 
the invaders' tents spread close by. Antiochus did not stop 
to besies;e Sidon — that would have been an immense under- 
taking — but passed on southwards. It was probably when 
Ptolemais was reached that he ordered Diognetus, who had 
hitherto waited on the land-forces, to take the fleet back to 
Tyre, in order to hold the Ptolemarc fleet, which still kept the 
harbour of Sidon, in check. The King himself struck up 
inland to Philoteria on the Sea of Galilee.^ It was his plan 
before going farther to establish a belt of Seleucid power 
across central Palestine. There was direct communication 
between the coast at Ptolemais and the Greco -Macedonian 
colonies beyond Jordan. Some of the roads traversed the 
skirt of the Galilean hills, and were commanded on this side 
of Jordan by Philoteria and the fortress Atabyrium on the 
isolated conical hill of Tabor ; another road went by way of 
the rich plain which divides the hills of Galilee from those 
of southern Palestine, and this was barred on the edge of the 
Jordan depression by the strong city of Scythopolis (Old 
Testament, Beth-shan ; modern, Baisan). 

Philoteria and Scythopolis submitted on conditions to the 

^ This is a Ptolemaic foundation, called after Philotera, the sister of Ptolemy 
II ; it is probably the city which we know by its later name, Tiberias. 


Seleucid King and received his garrisons. Atabyrium had to 
be reduced. A successful stratagem delivered the town into 
Antiochus' hands. The fall of Tabor following on the surrender 
of Philoteria and Scythopolis produced a profound impression 
in the country. The officers in the Egyptian service began to 
go over, Ceraeas and Hippolochus among the more notable. 
The latter was a Thessalian condottiere, who brought 400 horse 
along with him. 

Antiochus now crossed the Jordan into a region dominated 
by a galaxy of Greco-Macedonian cities. Pella, proclaiming 
its Macedonian origin by its name, Camus and Gephrus 
received the invader, and the prestige which accrued thereby 
to the arms of Antiochus attached the Arab tribes of the 
neighbouring country to his cause. Their adherence was a 
distinct gain, especially in view of the provisioning of the 
expedition. The partizans of Ptolemy threw themselves into 
Abila under Nicias, a kinsman of Menneas, but this city too 
was compelled to open its gates. The most illustrious of all 
these cities, Gadara, surrendered on the threat of a siege. To 
complete the work of the campaign it was necessary for 
Antiochus to strike out about fifty miles to the south. There 
in the city of Eabbath-ammon or Philadelphia the defenders 
of the Egyptian cause had congregated, and were harassing 
the friendly Arabs by raiding their grounds. So strong was 
the city that although Antiochus subjected it to a regular 
siege and battered down the walls in two places, he was 
unable to take it till one of the prisoners showed the under- 
ground conduit which supplied the garrison with water. The 
reduction of Rabbath-amnion brought the campaign of 218 to 
a close. Nicarchus was left with an adequate force beyond 
Jordan ; Ceraeas and Hippolochus were detached to protect the 
adherents of the house of Seleucus from molestation in the 
country about Samaria ; the King himself returned to winter 
in Ptolemais. 

It would seem that during the winter the Seleucid 
conquest of Palestine went forward, as the frontier cities of 
Gaza and Raphia are found to be in the hands of Antiochus 
at the opening of the campaign of 217. By the spring of 
that year the Egyptian court considered its preparations 


complete. It soon became evident that the decisive encounter 
was at hand. Ptolemy himself took the field, accompanied by 
his sister -wife, Arsinoe. The Egyptian army halted for its 
final marshalling in Pelusimn, and then advanced across the 
desert. Antiochus on his part was equally soon on the move. 
His final dispositions for the march across the desert were 
made at Gaza. Ptolemy on the fifth evening after leaving 
Pelusium encamped about five miles short of Eaphia, the first 
town in Palestine. When morning dawned, the Seleucid 
army was seen in position only a little more than a mile 
away, with Eaphia in its rear. For some days the hosts 
remained stationary, face to face. Then Antiochus moved 
still nearer, so that only about five stadia separated the 
stockades of the two camps. Five more days went by with- 
out a movement. It was during these that Ptolemy narrowly 
escaped assassination at the hand of Theodotus the Aetolian, 
who stole into the Egyptian camp in the darJc, and even broke 
into the state tent — to discover that Ptolemy slept elsewhere ! 
The Ptolemaic army began to be pinched by the inconveniences 
of its position ; it had the desert behind it, while Antiochus 
had cultivated land to draw upon. On the sixth day it 
deployed in battle formation. A picture is drawn for us in 
a Jewish writing ^ of the queen Arsinoe proceeding along the 
Egyptian lines, " with lamentation and tears and her hair 
loosed," to fire the troops in her cause ; that she addressed 
them is stated by Polybius, but it was probably rather in the 
bold spirit of a Macdeonian princess.^ 

Antiochus accepted the challeuge, and the armies closed. 
The first phase of the battle was an engagement of the cavalry 
and light-armed troops on both wings, either phalanx waiting 
its turn in the centre without movement. The issue of this 
part of the fight was evenly balanced. On the Seleucid right 
and Ptolemaic left, where the two kings commanded in person, 
the lines of Ptolemy were disordered by the recoil of the 
African elephants from the Indian ones of Antiochus. Taking 
advantage of this, the household cavalry and light -armed 
Greek mercenaries of Antiochus broke the Ptolemaic left. In 
the excitement of victory the young Kiug pressed the pursuit 

1 3 Maccabees i. 4. - Tolyb. v. 83, 3. 


to a dangerous distance from his phalanx. On the other 
wing the fortunes had been reversed ; there the Seleucid 
horse and the light-armed contingents of Asiatics — Lydians, 
Arabs and Medes — had been routed by the squadrons of the 
Thessalian Echecrates and the infantry composed of Greek 
mercenaries, Thracians and Gauls. 

It was now time for the phalanxes to decide the day. 
Lowering their sarissas, the great masses rolled forward and 
closed. The fruits of the long preparation of the Egyptian 
court were now reaped. At the first shock the main part of 
the Seleucid phalanx broke and fled ; only the select corps of 
10,000, the flower and choice of all the provinces, endured 
the tussle for a while, and was then forced to follow the flight 
of the rest. At the moment when Antiochus on the right was 
already tasting the joy of victory, more experienced eyes 
observed that the clouds of dust in the centre of tlie field 
were moving towards the Seleucid camp. Antiochus wheeled 
in desperate haste, but it was too late. The whole army was 
making in full retreat for Raphia. It was a bitter mortification 
for the young king. He was persuaded " that as far as his 
part in the battle went, it had been a victory, but that through 
the base spirit and cowardice of others the enterprise as a 
whole had foundered." 

The defeated army took refuge for the following night at 
Raphia. But Antiochus was anxious to put a greater distance 
between himself and Ptolemy,^ and next day continued his 
retreat to Gaza. It was from this town that he sent the 
request which, with the Greeks, was the formal acknowledg- 
ment of defeat — the request for permission to bury his dead. 
Then he set his face homewards, abandoning the conquests of 
two campaigns. Ptolemy for his part was not disposed to 
press the pursuit, and rested completely satisfied with the 
restoration of the status quo, the withdrawal of the Seleucid 
power behind the Lebanon. He simply made a progress 
through Palestine, where the communities vied with each 
other in the effusion with which they returned to allegiance. 
" Perhaps," the historian comments, " it is the usual way oi. 
men to adapt their conduct to the occasion ; but in an 

According to Juroine, in Dan. 11, '' Per dcserta I'ugicns jminc captus cai. 



especial degree the people of those parts are born time- 
servers." ^ 

Antiochus had other reasons besides the fear of his retreat 
being harassed to quicken his steps. He did not know what 
alarming effects the defeat might have on the popular temper. 
What if Achaeus, to whom the diadem had once been proffered, 
should now appear in Syria, with all the credit of his successes 
in Asia Minor, and call upon the populace, Macedonian and 
native, to desert a prince who was discredited and lamed ? 
Antiochus was concerned, as soon as he reached Antioch, to 
agree with his southern adversary quickly. He dispatched an 
embassy, headed by his nephew Antipater. Fortunately, the 
Ptolemy who now ruled Egypt cared for little except bestiality 
and helles lettres, and Antiochus found him unexpectedly 
accommodating. He agreed to a year's truce, and Sosibius, the 
vizir of Egypt, was sent to the Syrian court to conclude it. 
The truce seems to have led almost at once to a definite treaty 
of peace.2 Seleucia at any rate Antiochus had won back from 
Egypt. But in Coele- Syria, after all his efforts, he was 
obliged to see the old state of things restored.^ 

All his energies were now devoted to the crushing of 
Achaeus. The winter of 217-216 he spent in renewing his 
military organization, and preparing on a grand scale for the 
advance across the Taurus with the coming of spring. 

1 Polyb. V. 86, 9. - Cf. ibid. xv. 25, 13. =^ See Appendix S. 

[See an article by Mr. Mahaffy on "The Army of Ptolemy IV at Kaphia" in 
Hermathena, No. 24, 1898, pp. 140-152.] 




Appendix A (p. 31) 

The question of the native place of Seleucus is compassed with uncertain- 
ties. Stephen of Byzantium under 'OpwTros has ttoAis ^laKcSovias, i^ iy? 
^eAfDKos o NtKarwp ; and he goes on to say that there was another 
Oropus in Syria, founded by Seleucus and called after his home. As no 
Oropus in Macedonia is elsewhere mentioned, the critics readily under- 
stand Europus, a name found both in Macedonia and in Syria. This 
is a very nearly certain conjecture ; not quite certain perhaps, in view of 
our imperfect knowledge of the towns both in Macedonia and Syria. It 
is to be noticed that in Appian also (Syr. 57) Oropus is given among the 
cities founded by Seleucus in Asia with names borrowed from Greece 
and Macedonia. If in both passages Eui'opus be accepted as a right 
correction, we are confronted with a fresh dilemma, for in Macedonia we 
hear of two cities called Europus, one on the Axius and one in the district 
Almopia. Even if we could say which one of these was meant, we should 
not be much wiser, since the site of both is equally unkno^\'n. Lastly, 
according to Malalas, p. 203, Seleucus was a native of Pella. 

At his death in 281 he was, according to Appian {Syr. 63), seventy- 
three ; according to Justin xvii. 1, 10, he was seventy-seven. His birth 
would therefore fall between 358 and 354, and he would be between 
31 and 35 at Alexander's death. Alexander was bom in 356. 

The name of the father of Seleucus was Antiochus. "Antiocho, 
claro inter Philip pi duces viro " (Just. xv. 4, 3) was the account given 
of him in later times, when his descendants had risen very high in the 
world, and may possibly be true. 

The name Seleucus is one of the Alaceduman, as distinct from Greek, 
names found among the Macedonian nobility. It is not, I believe, found 
among the Greeks till after Alexander. Is it a dialectical variation of 
the Greek ZaAevKos, which I suppose means " Very white " ? 

That Seleucus left Macedonia with Alexander in 333 we gather from 
Diod. xix. 81, 5 ; App. Syr. 56. 

In Arr. Anah. v. 13, 4, Seleucus appears as commander of the 
(3a(rt\tKol vTraa-ir'nTTai. We can discern too little of the organization 
of Alexander's army by the broken lights thrown upon it in our toxtij 


to say what this corps was. It was not the agema, since the agema 
is expressly distinguished from it in this passage. Nor did it inchide 
all the vTracrrricrTaL outside the agema. J. G. Droysen (i. p. 169, note 3) 
and H. Droysen (Alexander des Grossen Heerwesen, Freiburg, 1885) sup- 
pose that the /3acriXiK0L vTraa-jricnai are identical with the /Saa-ikiKol 
TraiSes. To this D. G. Hogarth, Journal of Philology, xvii (1888), p. 
18, objects that the TralSes were " evidently mere boys." But if the 
TraiSes in the army of Eumenes (Diod. xix. 28, 3) correspond to the 
PacriXiKol TTttiSes of the King's army, they fought as regular soldiers. 

In the same chapter of Arrian {Anab. v. 13) Seleucus is described as 
Twv eratpwv. We must understand Iraipajv in the narrower sense of the 
term (Hogarth, Journal of Philology, xviL p. 18). 

Appendix B (p. 34) 

I have discussed in The Classical Review, xiv. (1900), p. 396, the 
character of the command received by Seleucus in 323. From the passages 
there cited it appears that Seleucus succeeded Perdiccas in the chiliarchy, 
which had been held by Hephaestion at the time of his death, and by 
Perdiccas in the interval before the death of Alexander. The command 
was that of the " Companion " cavalry, i.e. the cavalry composed of the 
Macedonian nobility, or at any rate the command of the principal corps 
in that body. It was thus the j^roudest position in the army, " summus 
castrorum tribunatus '"' (Just. xiii. 4, 1 7). The chiliarch was closely 
attached to the Eegent as second in command (Diod. xviii. 48, 4). 

To the passages cited in the note just mentioned should be added 
Dexippus, frag. 1, F.H.G. iii. p. 667, where the abstract of Photius 
gives the same statement as his abstract of Arrian — that Perdiccas was 
given the chiliarchy of Hephaestion by the chiefs in 323. Tliis is hard 
to reconcile ^vith the statements which represent Perdiccas as banning held 
it before the death of Alexander, and Seleucus as having succeeded to it 
by the partition made in Babylon. Either we must suppose in both 
abstracts of Photius the confusion which I suggested in my note, or we 
must suppose that for a little while after the death of Alexander, 
Perdiccas continued (with the sanction of the chiefs) to hold the chili- 
archy till it was transferred to Seleucus. 

Appendix C (p. 71) 

An inscription published by G. Mendel (Bull. corr. hell. xxiv. 1900, 
p. 380), and commented on by Bruno Keil (Revue de Philol. xxvi. 1902, 
p. 257 f.), is of capital importance in this connexion. It consists of two 
epitaphs on a Bithynian captain who fell in battle. They run as 
follows : — 

I. "A grave of full length encompasses my bones, and yet, 
stranger, I quailed not before the brunt of the foemen " (i.e. as B. KeU. 
explains it, those who fell in battle usually came home only as " two 


handfuls of white dust, shut in an urn of brass "), " but being one who 
fought on foot I abode in the forefront of the horse when we strove 
in the Plain of Corus (Kovpov . . . i/x ttcSioj). And before that I died 
for great glory's sake, I had first smitten a Thracian armed and a man 
of the Mysians. Wherefore let praise be given to the swift son of 
Bioeris, Menas the Bithynian, excellent among the captains." 

II. " Tears for the tombs of cowards, of them that take their death 
from sickness ingloriously ! I went down with great honour to the 
grave, fighting beside the stream of Phrygius for my country and my 
noble parents, after that I had first slain many of the enemy. Where- 
fore let men speak well of me, the Bithynian Menas, the son of Bioeris, 
that have passed into the light of praise." 

I confess that I should like further evidence that the battle referred 
to is the battle between Lysimachus and Seleucus, and I have a suspicion 
the inscription is of later date (the wars between Bithynia and Pergamos). 
It proves, at any rate, that the Plain of Corus was not in Hellespontine 
Phrygia, but in Lydia, beside the Phrygius. That was the river Ijeside 
which the battle of Magnesia was fought, and it would be a striking 
coincidence if the battle by which Seleucus won Asia Minor and the 
battle by which his house finally lost it ninety years later were fought 
upon the same field ! 

Appendix D (p. 98) 

The whole qiiestion of the partition after Ipsus is extremely obscure. 
Our authority is Appian, Syr. 55, and Appian seems there to write with 
more than usual carelessness, tumbling together tlie acquisitions of 
Seleucus before Ipsus, and his acquisitions after Ijjsus without distinction. 
He says, indeed, that Seleucus acquired " inland Phrygia " {^pvyias tt/s 
dva TO /xecroyetov, i.e. probably, as Niese takes it. Greater Phrygia in 
distinction from the Hellespontine) by the partition, but if Seleucus at 
some later time occupied Phrygia (after the rupture with Lysimachus), 
Appian would be quite likely in his loose way to bring it in here. As 
Appian is our only authority one would not cavil at his statement were 
it not that in 287 we find the armies of Lysimachus pursuing Demetrius 
as far as the passes of the Ta^irus and barricading the passes in his rear 
(Plutarch, Dem. 47), a proceeding not indeed impossible, but impi-olable 
if the country north of the Taurus belonged at that time to Seleucus. 
On the other hand, the story seems to regard Cataonia {ibid. 48) as being 
within his sphere, although the reference is far from conclusive on that 

Appendix E (p. 133) 

Who this queen was is a matter of doubt, since she is called the 
sister of Antiochus (Michel, No. 525, 1. 22). If she is Stratonice, the expres- 
sion has to be understood as a court metaphor, and was indeeil usual at 
the Ptolemaic court {e.g. G.I.G. 4694, Berenice, the wife of Ptolemy 111, 
is called ?} dSeX4>i) koI yvvi] avTov, although not really his sister). The 


objection to tliis is that there is no instance at the Seleucid court of a 
queen not the King's sister being called d8eX(f)rj. The other hypothesis 
is that the queen in question was the other wife of Antiochus, the 
mother of Laodice, and that she may have been his sister or half-sister (so 
Boeckh, C.I.G. Xo. 4694 ; Dittenberger, ed. i. Xo. 156). But we now know 
that Stratonice was still li^dng as queen in 265 or thereabouts (Michel, 
No. 486), and the Seleucid kings never appear with two legitimate 
wives simultaneously. It appears to me, therefore, best to understand 
Stratonice in the queen -sister here. The objection as to no other 
instance of the use occurring at the Seleucid court is not a strong one 
in view of the infinitesimal fraction of Seleucid documents which we 
possess ; and the court etiquette, so far as it can be traced, of the Seleucid 
and Ptolemaic courts is so closely parallel (S track, Rhein. Mus. Iv. 1900, 
p. 174) that we may believe parallelisms which we can no longer trace 

Appendix F (p. 135) 

How this war between Antiochus and Antigonus synchronizes with 
other events is impossible to make out with certainty. If we follow 
the phraseology of Photius' abridgment of Memnon strictly, we have to 
get in between the death of Seleucus (latter part of 281) and the 
ruj)ture with Antigonus the follo-ning events : (1) the " many wars," 
by which Antiochus recovers his father's kingdom (the suppression 
of the Syrian revolt and other simidtaneous disturbances) ; (2) the 
administration of Patrocles in Asia Minor, with the disaster to 
Hermogenes ; (3) the accession of Nicomedes, his negotiations with 
Heraclea, terminating in an alliance ; (4) the beginning of the war 
between Antiochus and Is icomedes, with the naval operations near the 
Bosphorus. All this would seem to require at least two years. Unfortun- 
ately, we do not know how far the phraseology of Photius can be 
pressed, and by the j^lace- which the war with Antigonus occupies in 
Trogus {Prol. xxiv.) it would seem to have begun within the first year 
of Antiochus' reign, being narrated before the Illyrian war of Ptolemy 
Keraunos (end of 281 or beginning of 280). But here again we do 
not know how far the order of events in the Prologues can be pressed. 
Its place in Trogus seems to me to make at any rate rather against 
Niese's theory that its occasion was the death of Ptolemy Keraunos, 
and the consequent claims of Antigonus to Macedonia. Also Niese's 
argument that it was over in 279, because troops of Antigonus and 
Antiochus fought together at Thermopylae, seems to me questionable. 

Appendix G (p. 151) 

This is nowhere expressly said, but seems suggested by the evidence. 
We have apparently four of these viceroys of Asia Minor : (1) Patrocles : 
7re/^7ret a-Tparrjjov UarpoKXea orvv eKO-TparevixaTL ets Tvyv eiri raSe tov 
Tavpov, Memnon 15 {F.H.G. iii. p. 534); (2) Alexander, the King's 




uncle, who "holds Sardis" (Eus. i. 251), is described (Michel, No. 
457) as KaraAeAet/A/tevos vtto tou f^axriXeos, and represents the Seleucid 
power in dealing with a city of Caria (Michel, ibid.) and with Smyrna 
(Michel, No. 19, 1. 101) ; (3) Achaeus, the King's cousin (Polyb. v. 
57, 4 and 8 ; 77, 1), who is not expressly called governor of Lydia, but 
who has his seat of government in the Lydian capital ; (4) ZeuxLs, who 
is called satrap of Lydia, Polyb. xxi. 16, 4, and who is found to 
exercise authority in Caria (Polyb. svi. 24, 6 ; Sitzimgsberichte der 
Akad. stt Berlin, 1894, p. 915-917) and in Phrygia (Joseph. xiL § 148 f.). 

Appendix H (p. 153) 

We hear of the hyparchy of Eriza {rj ttc/di "Epi^av virapxia) in the 
Hinterland of Lycia, between the modern Kara - euyuk - bazar and 
Khorzum, Bull. corr. hell. xv. (1891), p. 556. A hrjjMrch is spoken of as 
a subordinate of a satrap by Nicolas of Damascus (frag. 9, F.H.G. Ill, 
p. 358), but he is "hyparch of the whole satrapy," dAA' idv ye 
Ba/JuAwvos (raTpa7rev(T(o, o"e wap^^ov KaTacrrrycrw ttis oAt^s (TaTpaireias. 

It has been plausibly suggested (Kohler, Sitzungsb. der Akad. zu Berlin, 
1884, p. 451 ; of. Haussoiillier, Revue de Pliilol. xxv. 1901, p. 23) that 
upon the confusion in popular speech of the terms satrap) and hyparchos, 
satrapy and hyparchy rests the statement of Appian {Sxjr. 62) that the 
Empire of Seleucus Nicator embraced seventy-four satrapies. {Appian 
does not say that this division was in any sense an innovation of Sele^icus, 
as every one seems to take it ; Apj^ian only mentions the seventy -four 
satrapies to show how large the Empire was.) We have already seen 
that the satrap was often called hyparchos. 

Haussoullier suggests that the four satrapies, into which, according 
to Strabo xvi. 750, the Syrian Seleucis was divided, were in reality not 
satrapies, but hyparchies. He admits, however, that under the later 
Seleucids at any rate there is evidence for the term satrapy in this 
instance {G.I.Lat. iii. part i. No. 184). 

There seems to be a certain instance, on the other hand, of the 
term satrapy being wrongly applied by a historian to a smaller sub- 
division in Diod. xix. 98, where we read of the satrapy of Idumaea. In 
ch.' 95, 2, the expression used is the eparchy of Idumaea. Now tliat 
eparchy is a name for the subdivisions of the satrapy, i.e. synonymous 
with hyparchy, we can see by Diod. xix. 44, 4 : tovs 5e crr/DaTtwras 
CTrtStetAev eis airaa-av rrjv craTpaTriiav, kuI fxd\iar~a ets -nyv iirap^iav 
Trjv 7rpocrayop€vop.ivrjv Payas. 

Appendix I (p. 157) 

Babelon, p. xxxvii. affirms that Seleucus Niciitor minted at Side, and 
Niese (ii. p. 85, note 4) quotes him with approval, adding tliis as 
evidence that Side was subject to Seleucus. It appeare to me that 
a scientific basis in the use of such numismatic evidence is still to seek. 


Babelon (p. clxxvi.) makes some useful remarks on the extreme ease with 
which fancy can play with the monograms on coins and pass off the 
result as something of scientific value. It may be perhaps questioned 
whether Babelon has even carried his scepticism far enough. It is 
extremely suspicious that the result of his own deductions is, by his own 
admission, to give as the royal minting-places a series of comparatively 
insignificant towns, whilst the important cities do not appear (p. xxxviii). 
[Mr, Macdonald confirms my distrust of Babelon's results in this 

Appendix J (p. 161) 

It is perhaps well to point out that tiU recently, authorities, misled by 
the term " ancestors " (Curtius, Monatsber. der Berlin. Akad.), 1875, 
p. 554 ; Dittenberger, ed. i. No. 166), gave this decree to Antiochus the 
Second. On this supposition was built the theory that Seleucus or 
Antiochus I enslaved, and Antiochus II liberated, Erythrae, for the 
wording seemed to im23ly that the description ai'rovo/zos kol dcfyopoXoyrjTos 
was appropriate to the time of Alexander and Antigonus only, not to 
that of the "ancestors." Curtius, who advanced this theory, omitted to 
observe that the word (rvvSiarripi^croiMev implies that the autonomy was 
not being restored, but maintained uninterrvpted. But it is true that 
the language of Antiochus admits that under his house the city had 
been compelled to pay ; the autonomy had been respected, but the 
immunity he now restores. 

Appendix K (p. 188) 

TrpoTepoV T€ Ka6' ov Katpov 6 /BacnXevs ^eXevKos virepkfiaX^v els rrjv 
'SeXevKiSa, Smyrnaean Inscrijjtion, 1. 1, 2. Haussoullier {Revue de 
Philol. XXV. 1901, p. 129 f.) challenges the ordinary interpretation of 
this inscription, which makes two expeditions of Seleucus across the 
Taurus. According to him the attack of Magnesia on Smyrna comes at 
the very beginning of the reign. Diu'ing the progress of Ptolemy 
Euergetes, Seleucus remains in Asia Minor. Then, after showing his 
gratitude to Smyrna and bringing Magnesia to terms, he crosses (in 
244) the Taurus for the first time. It is true that we cannot certainly 
deduce from the phrases used two expeditions across the Taurus ; on the 
other hand, the inscription seems to me to state clearly (1. 1, 2) that 
the troubles of Smyrna from hostile attack began with the King's 
departure. At the time the decree is inscribed the King is absent in 
Syria (1. 14). If, therefore, there is only one passage of the Taurus in 
question, he must have been away all the time ; he must have bestowed 
his favours on Smyrna from a distance, and his forces must have quelled 
Magnesia in his absence. It seems to me more likely that the old 
interpretation which saw two expeditions is the true one. There must 
have been a great deal of marching to and fro in those troubled days. 
And the two expeditions, although not proved absolutely by the phrase- 
ology, seem to make it more natural. 



Appendix L (p. 193) 

Adiutorem et suppetias Alexandria (leg. Alexandrum) enim habebat, 
qui Sardianorum urbem tenebat, Eus. i, p. 251. It has been 
pointed out that the satrap of Lydia, whose capital, of course, was 
Sardis, seems to have been viceroy, in the King's al:)sence, of the whole 
trans-Tauric country (p. 151). If Alexander was the full brother 
of Laodice, he was a son of Antiochus I. Achaeus, who afterwards sits 
as viceroy in Sardis, is a cousin of the King (Antiochus III). This 
Alexander is probably the person in the Smyrnaean Inscription, 1. 101, 
who writes to Smyrna or Magnesia about the grants of land to the 
military colonists. I believe him to be also the Alexander of the 
Bargylian Inscription (Michel, No. 457). But, if so, this inscription is 
probably later than the time of Antiochus I, since it seems unnatural 
to suppose two terms of office for Alexander, twenty years apart. There is 
nothing, so far as I can discover, to date the inscription to the reign of 
Antiochus I. The mention of the games celebrated by the people in 
honour of " King Antiochus Soter " make rather against, than for, the 
supposition that he is the King of the rest of the inscription. For the 
King has been spoken of from the beginning of the inscription (as we 
now have it) anonymously, and the sudden introduction of a name with 
full titles appears rather to indicate a new person. The argiiment from 
the capture of the Carian coast by Ptolemy I under Antiochus I seems 
weak when we remember that Antiochus II regained much that had 
been lost, and that anyway individual cities probably changed hands 
over and over again in the vicissitudes of the long struggle. 

Appendix M (p. 194) 

It is nowhere said whether this marriage preceded or followed the battle 
of Ancyra. Reinach and Niese (ii. p. 158) assume that it Avas subsequent, 
and that by it Seleucus bought over Mithridates from the party of 
Antiochus. It seems to me more likely that it belongs to the earlier 
part of the reign of Seleucus, since (1) it is mentioned by Eusebius in 
his account of the reign of Antiochus II, although this by itself would 
not prove much ; (2) the marriage of Stratonice, the other sister, with 
Ariarathes, seems to belong to the reign of Antiochus II (Reinach, 
Trois royaumes, p. 17) ; and presuming the sisters to be about of an age, 
the marriage of one is not likely to have been separated by a great interval 
from that of the other ; and (3) Laodice, the daughter of Mithridates 
by his Seleucid queen, as her name attests, is old enough before 229-228, 
the date of Antiochus' final defeat, to be delivered over to him by her 
father, presumably in order to become his wife (see p. 201). If the 
marriage of Mithridates and the Seleucid princess took place after the 
battle of Ancyra, this Laodice must have been of a very tender age 
indeed when she was given up to Antiochus, and one would have also to 
suppose gratuitously a fresh change of side on the part of Mithridates. 


Appendix N (p. 201) 

I follow Niese (ii. p. 154) provisionally in putting the death of Laodice 
during the war between Seleucus and Antiochus, which succeeded the 
truce between Seleucus and Ptolemy, but with misgivings. The text 
of Appian plainly implies that Laodice was killed by Ptolemy at the 
beginning of his invasion of Seleucid Asia, i.e. soon after 246. But 
Laodice was certainly alive in Ephesus when the Ptolemaic officer wrote his 
dispatch (see p. 185), and, according to Plutarch, she supported Antiochus 
in his revolt against Seleucus. If, therefore, we believe the assumption 
of an independent authority by Antiochus to follow the peace with 
Egypt, and this is the more modern view as against the older view of 
Niebuhr and Droysen, we must in some way correct the statement of 
Appian. We may do this by supposing either (1) that Laodice really 
was killed by the Ptolemaic forces at some later date, or (2) that Appian 
carelessly exaggerates the vengeance taken by Ptolemy for Berenice's, 
murder, which really did consist in dealing a great blow to Laodice's 
power, so as to include the actual killing of Laodice. The latter 
alternative seems to me as possible as the former. In fact it is not 
easy to understand how the Ptolemaic forces should have got possession 
of Laodice when once she had withdra'wn into the interior from Ephesus. 
If we maintain Appian's statement as it stands as well as Plutarch's, we 
must revert to the view that the revolt of Antiochus, i.e. the setting up 
a separate government by Laodice in the name of the boy Antiochus, 
occurred in the early stages of the war between Seleucus and Ptolemy. 

Appendix (p. 233) 

Niese (ii. p. 125) cites a coin (Babelon, Gatal. No. 17) to prove that 
Seleucus struck money at Sid on. But the evidence does not seem very 
certain. All that Babelon affirms is that the coin is "certainly of 
Syrian make." The ground for supposing that it was struck at Sidon 
is that it bears a monogram which appears to be the same as a monogram 
found on some coins of Alexander attributed by Miiller to Sidon, Babelon, 
Rois de Syrie, p. xxxvii. 

I may remark here that there is, as far as I can see, no ground to 
suppose that the authority of the house of Seleucus reached Phoenicia 
south of the Eleutherus or Syria south of Lebanon before the time of 
Antiochus III. Ccele-Syria was, no doubt, claimed by Seleucus after 
Ipsus, but when he found Ptolemy in possession there, he allowed the 
matter to drop. The statement of Sulpicius Severus (Hist. Sac. ii. 17, 4) 
that the Jews paid tribute to Seleucus is worthless. Babelon assigns a 
number of the coins of the earlier Seleucids to Ccele-Syrian mints, but 
Mr. Macdona 1 tells me that he considers the grounds for doing so quite 
inadequate, and that there is no entirely reliable numismatic evidence to 
show an authority of th3 earlier Seleucids in the region in question. 




Appendix P (p. 251) 

Elam, as we saw, was the old Semitic name for the country which, under 
Alexander and his successors, was called Susiana. The Greek names Elymais, 
Elymaei, are generally thought to reproduce the Semitic Elam. But their 
use offers diiflculties. In the first place the Elymaei are distinguished 
from the Susians, and when we go on to ask where the Elymaei are 
located we meet with strange contradictions. Polyl:)ius, who is the first 
to mention them, places them in the north of Media (v. 44, 9). Strabo 
makes the Elymaei one of the fighting peoples of the hills of Ltiristan 
who, together with the Cossaei, raid the peoples of the j)lain, the 
Babylonians and Susians (xi. 522, 524; xv. 732; xvi. 739, 744). 
Gabiene, Massabatice, and Corbiane are eTrapxtoLt. of Elymais. In Pliny, 
Elymais lies on the coast south of Susiana, from which it is divided 
by the river Eulaeus. Massabatice (called Messabatene) is north of 
Susiana (vi. § 134 £) This position of Elymais comes close to Ptol. vi. 
3, 3, where the Elymaei are described as holding t'^s 2ovo-tav^s ra 
€7rt daXucra-y. But in vi. 2, 6, we have qviite another statement which 
brings us back to that of Polyljius ; Elymais is there in the north of 
Media. Of course it is easy to frame hypotheses to account for this 
confusion. There may have been a hill people whose name, by an 
accident, sounded like that of the Elamites. Or the Elymaei and the 
Susians may have been really parts of the same people — the old Semitic 
name being sometimes applied to that branch which held its independ- 
ence among the hills, sometimes to the dwellers by the coast. The 
Elymaei of northern Media again may be dift'erent from the Elymaei of 
the hills above Babylonia, or an offshoot of the same stock. In the East 
of to-day we know that Kurds and Turcomans are found in scattered 
communities in widely diverse regions. 

Appendix Q (p. 271) 

There seem to have been more than one city called Alexandria or 
Alexandropolis in the region of Drangiana and Ai'achosia. The deter- 
mijiation of their sites, and their identification with modern cities, is a 
very perplexed question. Droysen discusses it at large (ii. p. 674 f). 
His provisional conclusion identifies Alexandria of the Arachosians with 
Ghazni, Alexandropolis in Sacastene with Karat-i-Ghilzai, and Alexandria 
in Sacastene with Kandahar. But this is not generally accepted ; the 
common opinion, endorsed by Kaerst in his recent book {Gesch. des 
hellenist. Zeitalt. 1901), identifies Alexandria of the Arachosians with 
Kandahar. Discussion seems unsatisfactory when our data are so un- 
certain, and any result must be merely provisional till the country has 
been fm-ther explored. 


Appendix E (p. 273) 

Droysen (ii. p. 686 f.) infers three different cities ; Kaerst {Gesch. d. 
hellenist. Zeitalt. i. p. 371) thinks one more probable. Tomascbek {Berich. 
d. Akad. d. Wissensch. zu Wien. 1890, vol. cxxi. Abb. viii. p. 19) makes 
Alexandria ev "Qpous coincide -n-itb tbe modern Sonmiani at tbe mouth 
of the Puraly. This identification gives rise to further difficulties, since 
(1) if the Aibis is the Puraly, as is commonly supposed, the site vrill 
not square with the accounts of Alexander's march, and (2) if the Arbis 
is not the Puraly, the town founded by Nearchus must be different from 
Alexandria. The map of Kiepert places Rambacia 50 miles inland and 
nearly 100 from the mouth of the Arbis. 

Appendix S (p. 320) 

It would seem from the narrative of Polybius that Antiochus 
abandoned Coele-Syria completely. And it is almost unthinkable that 
the victorious Ptolemy, however supine, should have agreed to less. It 
must, however, be admitted that there are two pieces of evidence which 
leave us puzzled : (1) Achaeus in 215 hopes to raise Phoenicia and Gale- 
Syria on his behalf (Polyb. viii. 19, 11); (2) there exists a coin of 
Ptolemais with the legend 'Avrtoxewv rtuv Iv TiroXefiat^i. and the date, 
year 99, i.e. 214-213 B.C., Babelon, Rois de Syrie, Ixxxvi., Gatal. No. 456. 
Babelon says : " La lecture de la date est certaine." 

[Mr. G. F. Hill now points out to me that Rouvier, in the Revue 
Biblique of July 1899, contests Babelon's dating of this coin, and puts it 
as late as the reign of the Emperor Claudius.'] 


Printed by R. S: R. Clark, Limited, Edinburgh. 


University of Toronto 

Acme Library Card Pocket